$-147 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + LA.APP.1017/2010 TARA CHAND & ORS. Appellants Through: Mr.L.B.Rai, Advocate versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr.Sanjay Poddar, Advocate for R-1 Mr.Arun Birbal, Advocate for DDA S CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG ORDER % 08.07.2011 For orders, see LA.APP.No. 784/2005. PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J. JULY 08, 2011 mm Digitally Signed By:AMULYA Certify that the digital file and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file and no page is missing. Signature Not Verified IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI ± JAM NA UOl&ORS Date of l2ecisI0fll 8th LuLv, 2O11 LAPR784/2QP_ Appellant Through: MrL.B.Rai, Advocate, Mr.I.S.DahiYa, Advocate, Mr D.S.Lakra, Advocate, Mr.K.Suni'.l, Advocate, Mr.Anuj Bhandari, Advocate Mr.Shadam Farashat, Advocate Versus Respondents Through: Mr.Sanjay Poddar, Standing Counsel (LA), GNCT Delhi with Ms.Deepika, Mr.Sachifl Nawani and Mr. Siddharth Panda Advocates Mr.Ajay Verma, Ms.Kanika Agnihotri, Mr.Kunal Sharma, Mr.Sumer Sethi, Mr.B.B.Sharma, Ms.Shobhfla Takiar and Mr.Arun Birbal, Advocates for DDA AND + LA.APP. 879/2005, LA.APP: 880-881/2005, LA.APP. 121/2006, 143/2007 (Relating to Notification u/s 4. dated. 25.02.1997 & Award No.2/1999-2000, Village Mundka) AND . LA.APP. 583/2009, LA.APP 603/2009, LA.APP. 604/2009, LA.APP. 606/200.9, LA.A'PP. 610/2009, 74/2010, LA.APP. 78/2010, Page 1of 19 LA.APP.784/2005,& connected . . LA.APP. 79/2010, LA.APP. 121/2010, LA.APP. 122/2010,, LA.APP. 125/2010, LA.APP, 164/2010, LA.APP. 185/2010, LA.APP. 186/2010, LA, APP. 200/2010, LA.APP. 23.8/2010, LA.APP. 239/2010, LA.APP. 243/2010, LA.APP. 244/2010, LA.APP: 245/2010, LA.APP. 247/2010; LA.APP. 251/2010, LA.APP. 252/2010, LA.APP. 266/2010, LA;APP. 267/2010, LAAPP. 273/2010, LA.APP. 274/2010, LA.APP. 275/2010, LA.APP. 312/2010, LA.APP. 324/2010, L.A. APP. 326/2010, 'LA.APP. 327/010, LA.APP. 329/2010, 'LA.APP. 330/2010, LA.APP. 331/2010, LA.APP. 332/2010, LA.APP. 333/2010 with CM APPL. No. 5524/2011, LA.APP. 335/2010, LA.APP. 367/2010, LA.APP. 368/2010, LA.APP. 369/2010, LA.APP. 371/2010 & CM APPL. No.20099/2010, LA.APP. 374/2010, LA.APP. 375/2010, LA.APP. 377/2010, LA.APP. 379/2010, LA.APP. 423/2010, LA.APP. 452/2010, LA.APP. 461/2010, LA.APP. 472/2010, LAAPP. 694/2010, LAfiPP'. 696/2010 & CM APPL. No. 6340/2011, LA.APP. 697/2010, . 706/2010.. LA.APP. 698/2010 & CM APPL.• 1734/2011, LA.APP. &' CM APPL. 17215/2010, LA.APP. 707/2010, LA.APP. 708/2010, LA.APP. 709/2010, LA.APP. 710'2010 with CM APPL. No.2568)2011, LA.APP.. 713/2010 with CM APPL. No.74.73/201.0., LA.APP 715/2010, LA.APP. 717/2010; LA.APP. 719/2010, LA.APP. 766/2010, LA.APP. 796/2010, LA.APP. 797/2010, LA.APP • 798/2010, LA.A'PP. '799/2010,. LA.APP. 818/2010, LA.APP. 819/2010, LA.A.PP.' 829/2010, LA.APP. 831/2010 & CM APPL. 955/2011, LA.APP. 832/2010, LA.APP. 833/2010 & CM APPL. • 6392/2011, LA.APP. 83.4/2010, LA.APP. 842/2010, LA.APP. 871/2010, LA.APP. 874/2010, LA.APP.. 875/2010, LA.APP. 876/2010 1 , LA.APP. 877/2010, LA.APP. 878/2010,' LA.APP. 879/2010, LA.APP. 880/2010, LA.APP. 881/2010 & CM APPL.6505j2011, LA.APP. 882/2010, LA'.APP. 883/2010, LA.APP. • 884/20.10, LA.APP. • 886/2010, LA.APP. .888/2010, •LA.APP. • • 889/2010 & CM' APPL.2249/2011, LA.APP. 890/2010, LA.APP.' 893/2010 & CM APPL. 6750/2011, LA.APP. 894/2010 & CM No.23353/2010, LA.APP. 895/2010, LA.APP. 896/2010, LA.APP. 897/2010' & CM' APPL728/2011, LAAPP. 903/2010, LA.APP. LA.APP.784/2005 & connected • • • Page 2 of 19 907/2010, ,LA.APP. 938/2010., LA.APP. 939/2010, LA.APP. 1034/2010 & CM APPL. 3086/2011, LA.APP. 1040/2010 & CM APPL. 5673/2011, LA.APP. 1041/2010, LA.APP. 1043/2010, LA.APP. 1045/2010, LA.APP. .1046/2010, LA.APP. 1048/2010, LA.APP, 1049/2010, LA.APP. 1050/2010. LA.APP. 1056/2010, LA.APP. 1060/2010, LA.APP. 1061/2010, LA.APP; 1071/2010, LA.APP, 125/2011, LA.APP. 126/2011,LA.APP. 258/2011 (Relating to Notification u/s 4 dated 21.03.2003 & Award No.3/2005-06, Vllage-Mundka) AND. + LA.APP. 600/2009, LA.APP 605/2009, LA.APP. 615/2009, LA.APP. 310/2010, LA.APP. 25/2010, LA.APP. 376/2010, LA.APP. 383/2010,. LA.APP. 384/2010,LA.APP. 385/2010, LA.APP.. 473/2010, .LA.APP. 492/2010, LA.APP. 586/20.10, LA.APP. 591/2010, LA.APP. 638/2010, LA.APP. 690/2010, LA.APP. 692/2010, LA.APP. 711/2010, LA.APP. 716/2010, LA.APP. 763/2010, LA.APP. 872/2010, LA.APP. 873/2010, LA.APP 885/2010, LA.APP; 887/2010, LA.APP. 891/2010, LA.APP. 892/2010, L.A.APP., 898/2010, LA.APP 906/2010 & CM APPL. N0A443/2010, LA.APP. 937/2010 & CM APPL. 23299/2010, LA.APP. 1042/2010, LA.APP. 1047/2010 (Relating to NotificatiOn u/s 4 dated 21.0.12003 & Award No.1/2005-06, Village-Mundka) LA.APP. 1003/2010, LA.APP. 1017/209, LA.APP. 1019/2010, LA.APP., 1022/2010, LA.APP. 1023/2010, .LA.APP. 1044/2010, LA.APP. 1051/2010, LA..APP. 1053/2010, LA.APP. 1054/2010 & .. • CM APPL. No.5656/2011, LA. APP. 1055/2010, LA.APP. 1057/2010, LA.APP: 1058/2010, LA.APP, 1059/2010, LA.APP. 1068/2010, LA.APP. 1069/2010, LA.APP. 124/2011, LA.APP. 127/2011, LAAPP. 128/2011, LA.APP. 259/2011 • . LA.APP.78412005 & connected • . Page 3 of 19 • (Relating to Notification u/s 4 dated 17.06.2005 & Awad NOr13/200607, Viilage-Mundka) AND • + LA.APP. 40/2009 •& Cross Objections, LA.APP. 426/2009, • LA.APP. 428/2009, 442/2009, LA.APP. 611/2009, LA.A.PP. 616/2009, LA.APP. 278/2010 (Relating to Notification u/s 4 dated 24.09.200. & Award No.3/2004-05, Village-Bakkarwala) AND ± LA.APP. 1029/2010 & CM No.5948/2011, LA.APP. 1030/2010, LA.APP; 1031/2010, LA.APP. 1033/2010 & CM No.6645/2011, LA.APP. 1062/2010, 1063/2010 & CM • . No.6943/2011, LA:APP. 1064/2010, LA.APP. 1066/2010, LA.APP. 1067/2010, LA.APP. 11/2011, LA.APP. 122/2011 (Relating to Notification u/s 4 dated 17.06.2005 & Award No.1/2006-07, Village-Bakkarwala) • • CORAM: • • • HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NAN DRAJOG • 1. Whether the Reporters of local papers maye allowed to see the judgment? ; To be referred to Reporter or not? Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J. (Oral) • 1. 1 , am deciding the above captioied appeals and • • relatable civil miscellaneous applications which are by way of cross objections; all of which have been listed hereinabove • • LA.APP.784/2005 connected • • • • Page 4 of I The present decision concerns issue of fixation of fair market value of land in the revenue estate ofVillage Bakkarwata and village Mundka. The dates on which fair market value of the land hs to be determined may be graphically noted as under:- S.No. Name of Village Date of notificationunder - Section 4 of the LA Act 1, Bakkarwaja 24.9.2003 Bakkarwala 17.6.2005 Mundka 25.2.1997 4 Mundka 21.3.2003 5. Mundka 17.6.2005 It may be highlighted that the notification at serial No.2herejnabove pertaining tovillag Bakkarwala, is the same pursuant whereto lands wereacquired in the revenue estte of Village Mundka; asperseriãi No.5above. S * AbUtting NH-b, leading from the city of Delhi to the township pf Rohtak in the State of Haryana, ar&vilIages Mudka, Ghevra and Tikri Kalan Village Bakkárwala lies tOwardsh e other side of the Southern bouhdary of village Mundka. The difference between the toology of the two villages is; whereas the land of village Mundka abuts NH-b, that of villae Bakkarwalã does not s.o abut; being on the .ohér side of the Southern boundary of revenue estate of village Mundka. As we proceed from the city of Delhi to the township of Rohtak, village Mundka is crossed fist, followed by village Ghevra and then village Tikri Kalan. Agricultural lands in village Mundka were acquired LA.APP.784/2005 & connected S Page 5 of 19 pursuant to a notificatiory dated 25.2.1997 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act as per award No.2/1999/2000. Agicultural lands in the revenue estate of village Mundka were further acquired pursuant to a notification dated 21.3.2003 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act as per award No.3/2005-06 as also award No.1/2005-06. Further lands in the revenue estate of the same village were acquired pursuant to a notification dated 17.6.2005 issued underSection4 of the Land Acquisition Act asper Award No.13/200607.2 8.. Agricultural lands in the revenue estate of village Bakkarwala were acquired pursuant to a notification dated 24.9.2003 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act as per Award No.3/200405. Further lands in the revenue estate of the same village were acquired pursuant to a notification dated 17.6.2005 (the sarre notification under which lands in village Mundka were acquired) as per award No.1/2006-07. In a nut shell, the Land Acquisition Collector determined the fair market value of the acquired lands, under all the awards, with reference to the minimum price for agricultural land as notified by the Government of NCT Delhi. For clarity I may note that pertaining to the notification dated 25.2.1997 under which agricultural lands in the revenue estate of village Mundka were acquired, the learned Land Acquisition Collector determined the fair market value with' reference to the mipimum price for agricultural land notified . with effect from 1.4.1997 @ Z10 lacs per acre and sin.ce the date of Section 4 notification was anterior in point of time, discOunted LA.APP.784/2005 & connected Page 6 of 19 the price for one year•@ 11.5% per annum. This price was adopted for category A lands. For lands in cateory B ,, the value was 'further discounted by 90,00'0/- per acre. Pertaining to the hotification dated 21.3.2003 ' and 24.9.2003, the Land Acquisition Collector relied upon the notification fixing the minimum pride of agricultural land as of 1.4.2001 and gave no benefit ofenhancem'ent with reference to the fact that the fair market value of the lands to be d:etermined was as of 2 1.3.2003 and 24.9.2003. Even pertaining to the notification dated 17.6.2005 which required fair market value of land' to be determined in the revenue estate of viltage Bakkarwala and village Mundka as of 17.6.2005, the Land Acquisition Collector determined the same with reference to the notification fixing minimum value of agricultural lands in Delhi as of 1.4.2001 and gave no increase. ' 11. Aggrieved by'the determination of the fair market value of the lands by the Land Acquisition. Collector, the land owners' sought a reference under Section 18 of, the Land Acquisition Act 1894 and, on the reference being made, vide various judgments and decrees, which are under challenge in the above captioned appeals, the Reference Court took corrective action, as per the view of the Reference Court, and enhanced the fair market value. ' 12. ' In a nut shell, pertaining to the notification ,dated 25.2.1997 vide which agricultural lands in village Mundka were acquired, theReference Court adopted the sane notification as was adopted by the Land Acquisition Collector under which the LA.APP.784/2005&connected Page7ofl9 ' -- . 7 - Government of NCT Delhi had - fixed the, minimum value for - - agricultural lands in Delhi i.e. 1.4.1997, but as against the Land Acquisition Collector depressing the price @ 11.5% for full one year; adopting the percentage 11.5, decreased the-value by. only 34 days inasmuch as the date with reference whereto Government had notified the minimum value was 1.4.1997añd the notification under Section 4 of the -Land Acquisition Act was dated 25.2.1997. Thiswas the value - fixed for category A lands and for category B lands; with reference to the Values for category A land depressed the same by 90,000I per acre. Thus, for category A lands the Reference Court - determined the fair market.value @ 9,9,2-88/- per acre and for - category B land the same was determined 8,99,288/- per acre. - 14. Pertaining to the notifications dated 21.3.2003 and 24.9.2003 whereunderagricultural lands in village Mundka and - - village Bakkarwala respectively were acquired, the Referenc-e Court took note of the fact that after the Government had notified the minimum rates for agricultural lands in Delhi as of 1.4.200 1- the next revision was as -of 30.8.2 005. Using the said dates and the minimum price: notified by the Government of NCT - Delhi, the Reference Court adopted the principle of mean -. average. What the Reference Court did was toadopt the value - - - - - --- as of 1.4.2001 and increasing the same by 10% -per annum determined the enhanced price a of 21.3.2003 as also - 24.9.2003. Thereafter the Reference Court --took the valUe : notified as of 30.8.2005 and depressing the same by 10% per LA.APP.784/2005 & connected Page 8 of 19 - annum dBtermined the sum arrived, at as of 21.3.2003 asals.o 24.9.2003. The two sums arrived at were added and divided by two to arrive at the mean figure as of 21.3.2003, which I note comes to 15,92,083.33 per acre (In some decisions I note the sum arrived at is 15,92,215/-). For the date 24.9.2003 the price determined was 20,41,000/- per acre. , Pertaining to the notification d,ated 17.6.2005 pursuant •whereto agricultural Jands were acquired in village Bakkarwala and.Mundka the learned Reference Court adopted the minimum price for agricultura! lands 'hotified 'by the Goernnient'of NCT Delhi with 'effect from 1.42001 and giving : increase @10% per annum determined' the value and with respect to the lands in village Mundka, on account of locational advantage, being, abutting NH40 gave 5% more and determined the fair market value as of 176.2005 insum Of 21,37,017.75 per acre and for village Bakkarwala the price determined was 20,35,255/- 'per acre. , In the aforesaid backdrop of the factual scenario in • which I have penned, profiled' the reason'ing . of.' the Land Acquisition Collector as also that of the Reference Court, I delve into the arguments advanced before me during hearing today. With reference to the evidence led in LAC No.384/2004 Jamna_Vs. 1)0/ & Ors., it was urged by Sh.L.B.Rai, learned counsel for the appellant in LA App.No.784/2005, which argument wa5 adopted by other learned counsel who appeare'd for the other appellants, that the learned Trial Judge was not justified in ignoring the sale deed Ex.P-1 whereunder 1 bigha LA.APP.784/2005 & connected Page 9 of 19 and 3 biswa of agricultural land in village Mundka was sold as of 5.8.1996 for a sale consideration Qf'4,75,0O0/-. 38,000!- was incurred toward sale duty and thus the price of the land would be 5,13,000/- and calculated with, reference thereto, land price per bigha would come to 4,46,000I- as of 5.8.1996. Learned counsel would urge that there is no reason not to hold that fair market value of agricultural lands in village 'Mundka was 4,46,000/- per bigha as of 58.19.96. 'Taking the argument forward, it is urged that with reference to the said price, fair market value needs to be determined as of 25.2.1993, • " 21.12003 and 17.6.2005, i.e. the dates when notifiations under Section 4 of the Land AcquisitiOn Act were issued pursuant whereto agricultural lands were acquired in village Mundka, by • increasing the price progressively, if not by 12% per annum at least by,10% per annum. It is urged that on the same basis, 'land price should be determined for the agricultural lands in village Bakkarwala. Alternatively, it was urged that since villages Tikri Kalan, Mundka and Bakkarwaia are contiguous villages, and in fact village •Tikri Kalan is further towards the tonhip of Roh•tak, some increase be mde in the value of the land in village Mundka and Bakkarwala with reference to the 'judgment and decree dated 19.12.2008 deciding a b'atch of ' Land Acquisition Appeals, lead matter being LA A'ppea No.193/2006 Pratap Sincjh (Deceased) Thr. LRs Vs. UQI as per which fair market value of land, per bigha, was determined in the ,rvenue estate of village Tikri Kalan as of 16.11.1995, 11.6.1996 and 17.12.2002 at 2,15,164I- for catgdry A land LA.APP.'784/2005 & connected , ' ,,,, Page 10 of 19 and U,73,5001- for category B land; Z2,35,850 for category A land and 1,90,150/- for category B land; .4,02,850I- for category A land and 3,24,850I- for category B. land, respectively. I may , note here that in various land acquisition references, various parties have proved a number of sale deeds executed from time to time, but during arguments today before me 1 learned counsel for the land ovners have only relied upon the sale deed Ex.P-1. .. Per contra, Sh.Sanjay Poddar learned counsel for the UOI would urge that the sale price as per Ex.P-1 cannot be adopted as the yardstick for the reason, to be a. representative sample of the whole, the sample must bear some adequate proportionto the whole. For example, learned counsel would urge that if it has to be determined whether what percentage of stones are mixed in a bag of rice it would not be a safe method to pick only one .grain, for if it happens to be the grain of rice one would lead to the conclusion that the bag is 100% full of rice and if that one grain happens to be a piece of stone, one would reach to the conclusion that the bag is full of stones. At least a fistful should be lifted and then checked as a representative: sample, is- the example given. The second reason on which learned cou'hsel would attack the sale . deed as not being representative of the price is the reason that people do come to 'know about pending. acquisitiQn 'inasmuch as before acquisitions are made, land in the area is surveyed. Without a survey it would be difficult to issue even the notification under Section 4 LA.APP.784/2005 & éonnected . . . Page 11 Of 19 of the Land Acquisition Act. Learned counsel would concede that the reasons given by the learned Reference Court are not sound, but would urge that the two contentions advanced by him should be considered by this Court as the' reasons as to why Ex.P-1 be not taken as the basis to determine the fair market. value of lands in village Mundka and Bakkarwala. Thirdly, earned counsel would further urge that the four sale deeds Ex.R-1 to R-4 referred to in the decision of the learned Reference Court pertaining to sale deeds dated 6.1.1995, 30.5.1997, 46.1997 and 8.9.1997 relied upon by UOl would show the actual market 'value of the land and thus learned co,unsl would urge that the said four sale deeds should be considered, but hastens to add, that since value, reflected therein is less than the minimum price notified by the Government, the price fixation should be with.reference to the, minimum price notified by the Government which is nearest to the point of time when the respective notifications were issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act. An independent and alternative argument is also advanced by learned counsel for the Union. The same rests itself on a decision of a Division Bench of this Court reported as 2006 (135) DLT 231 /a/Singh Vs. 1101. ' The decision in /ai5Ingh's case (supra) concerns itself to with the determination of the fair market value of land in village Bakkarwala which were acquired pursuant to' a notification dated 15.10.1993 at 1,32,000/- per bigha. Learned counsel would urge that the said decision has attained finality inasmuch LA.APP.784/2005 & connected ' Page 12 of 19 • \c as.Petition.s for Special Leave to Appeal filed beforethe Supreme Court by either side have been dismissed. Learned counsel takes the argument forward by urging that by adopting the fair market value qf land in village Bakkarwala as of 15.10.1993 at fl,32,000/- per bigha, the fair market value should be ascertained by increasing the price progressively by 10% per annum to 'determine the market value of land in 'village Bkkarwala as of 24.9.2003 as also 17.6.2005. Learned counsel would ure that in view of the locational advantage of village Mundka, fair market value of land in village Mundka should be determined as of 25.2.1997, 21.3.2003 and 17.6.2005,by giving 5 0/ increase. ' 2. With respect to the sale deed Ex.P 7 1, whereunder 1 bigha and 3 bisw.a of agricultural land was sold in Village Mundka as of 5.8.1996, it would assume importance that the sale is about 7 months priorto the date of the notification issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, which was issued on 25.2.1997. It i, a matter of common knowledge that preceding the publication of a notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, survey's are carried out with the object of determining 'as to what lands comprised in which 'khasra numbers and 'fields are required to be notified for the proposed acquisition and when this happens people in the area come to • know that very soon there is every likelihood that the. lands • • would be acquired. In Delhi, the large scale acquisition policy enjoins upon the Government to allot 1 at pre determined rates, a plot of developed residential land to' the ones whose lands are LA.APP784/2005 & connected ' .. . • • Page 13 of 19 11 0 40 acquired and thus, it is not uncommon, for persons to purchase small parcels of lands in areas where acquisitions are likely to take place; these transactions are specultive and cannot be taken to be a representative measure of the fair market value of land as on the date of the sale. Further, the principles of ratio and proportion as also the principles of averages and the principles of sampling tell me that to be representative of the whole, a sample must bear at intelligible proportion to the whole. Thus, not for the reasoning advanced by the learned Reference Court, but for the twin reasoning hitherto-fore noted, I hold that Ex.P-1 cannot be good evidence wherefrom market vlue of the land could be determined. There is an additional reason not to rely UpQfl the said sale deed. The sale deeds Ex.R- 1 to Ex.R4, dated 6.1.1995, 30.5.1997, 4.6.1997 and 8.9.1997 are also pertainingtO Village Mundka and reflect a sale price much lower than the sale price recorded in Ex.P-1. In fact,. the sale price in the:said 4 sale deeds averages, much less than even the minimum price for agricultural land in Delhi notified by the Government. 23; Thus, the fair market value of the lands would be required to be fixed either with referente to the decision of this Court.inS/flcaSe (supra) Orratap5/flgh'5ca5e(5uP). ' • I highlight that both decisions, penned by the Division Bench of this Court have been upheld by the Supreme Court.' The decision in Lal 5/ngh'5 case supra) determined • fair market value of land in Village Bakkarwala in sum of 1,32,000/- per bigha as of 15.10.1993, and the perusal thereof LAAPP.784/2005 & connected . • , ' Page 14 of 19 I Q& would show that the Court assssed,the fair market value with reference to sale deeds executed between the years 1990 till the year 1996 either in Village Tikri Kalan or Village .Mundka, apparently on the premise that being contiguous villagers, sale price of agricultural land in the .2' adjoining villages would be indicative of fair market value of land in Village Bakkarwala. 26. In .Pratap Singh's case (supra), the Division Bench was concerned with aghcultural lands in Tikri Kalan and another adjoining Village hamed Ghevra and pertaining to various notifications issued under Sectio. 4 of the Land Acquisition Act determined the fair market value of agricultural lands in Village Tikri Kalan and Ghevra as under:- S.NO. Date ' Village" ' Price per Bigha 24.07.1995 & Tikri Kalan 2,15,160/- for Block 16.11.1995 A. & i,73.,500/- for Block B land 11.06.1996 - Tikii Kalan ' & 2,35,815/- for Block Ghevra . , A & 1,90,156/- for Block,B land 17.12.2002 Tikri Kalan . 402,850/- for Block A & T3 1 24,850/ for Block B land 27. , Following the judgment in Pratap Sin gh's case (supra) I have decided the fair market value for the land situated in revenue estate' of Village Ghevra, which was acquired pursuant to notification dated 6.2.2003 in the batch of appeals being Land LA.APP.784/2005 & connected , .. , , Page 15 of 19 Acquisition Appeal No.489/2009 Anr. on 2.6.201,1 I have determined the fair market value of the, lands in Village Ghevra at 4,03,425/- per bigha as of 6.2.2003. On the issue of comparabHitY of land in village .BakkarWala with village Mundka, Ghevra and Tikri Kalan, it is no doubt true that whereas viliage BakkarWala does not abut NH-10, as do the other villages, but it has to b e .highlighted that it is more proximate to the urban areas of Delhi vI--VI5. Ghevra and Tikri Kalan and to that extent, qua said .2 villageS, has an advantage. Since exactness can never be achieved in the matters of assessing fair compensation1 it is th broad probabilities and Us, I hold all 4 villages to be similarities which matter. Th equivalent, unless qua some lard specil features can be shown. 28. Since the decision in F 2_ taSifl h'S case (supra) deals with notifications more prox imate in point of time to the notifications with which I am concerned, I am, of the opinion that it would be just, fair and proper to determine., the fai.r market value of lands with which I am concerned in relation to the fair market value of lands determined in Patp,gh s case (supra). As per the decision in Pratap 5ingh' case (supra) for the date 24.7.1995, for CategorY A lands fair