$-106 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + LA.APP.832/2010 UOl Appellant Through: Mr.Sanjay Poddar and Ms.Deepika, Advocates versus GITA DEVI & ANR. Respondents Through: Mr.Sumer Sethi, Advocate for DDA CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG ORDER % 08.07.2011 CM No.16385/2010 There is a delay in filing the appeal. The delay is condoned. Application is allowed. LA.APP.No.832/2010 For orders, see LA.APP.No. 784/2005. PRADEEP NAN DRAJOG, 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 . . . . . . , .. .. . . . . . . . . . : • : • . . -a • * • IN THE HIGH COURT. OF DELHI AT NEW DELHi Date of Dec/S70fl.' 8th July2Ofl .' LAApP.784/2005. . . .. . JAMNA Appellant Through Mr L B Rat, Advocate, Mr I S Dahiya, Advocate, Mr D S Lakra, Advocate, Mr K Sunil, Advocate, Mr Anuj Bhandai, Advocate Mr Shadam Farashat, Advocate r . . . .. . . . ,.., . Versus . . 4 . UOI & ORS Respondents Through Mr Sanjay Poddar, Standing p Counsel (LA),. GNCT Delhi with . . . Ms.D.eepika, Mr.SaChiflNawafli,afld . I. Mr. Sddharth Panda Adv0cateS . . . Mr.Ajay Verma, M.s.Kaflik : . . AgnihOtri1 Mr.Kuflal Sharma, . . . Mr Sumer Sethi, Mr B B Sharma, MsShobhnaTak1ar and Mr.Arufl. Birbal, Advocates for DDA . ,AN D + LA.AP.P. 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. 604/20O9. . . LA APP 606/2009, LA APP 610/2009, 74/2010, LA APP 78/2010, LA APP 784/2005 & connected Page 1 of 19 FA - . .. ., . . . . - . - .. ...... ....- '1 7 LAAPP 79/2010, LAAPP 121/2010, L/APP 122/2010, LAAPP 125/2010, LAAPP. 164/2010, LA.APP. :185/2010 1 LA.APP. •1 186/2010, LA. APP. 200/2010, LA..APP. 238/2010, LA.APP. 239/2010 1 '. LA.APP. 24,3/2010, 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, 'LA.APP. 273/2010, LAAPP 274/2010, LAAPP 275/2010, LAAPP 312/2010, LA.APP. 324/2010, LA. , APP. 326/2010, LA.APP.', 327/2010, 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.APR. 335/2010, LA.APP. 367/20101 .LAAPP. 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. 46,1/2010, LA.APP. 472/2010, LA.APP. 694/2010, LA.APP. 696/2010 & CMAPPL. No. 6340/2011,.LA.APP. .. 697/2010,' LA.APP. 698/20 1.0 & CM APPL. 1734/2011, LA.APP. 700010 & 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 N'o.74.73/2010.,'. • . • • ' 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.APP. 799/2010, LA,APP. 818/2010,' 'LA.APP. • • ' 819/2010, LA.APP. 8 010 . PP. 831/2010 & CM APPL. .955/2011 1 LA.APP. 832/2010 LA.APP. 833/2010 & CM APPL. 6392/2011, LA. .. 834/2010, LA.APP. 842/2010, LA.APP. 871/2010, LA.APP. 74/2010, LA.APP. 875/2010, LA.APP. 876/2010, LA.APP. 877/2010, LAAPP. 878/2010, ..LA.APP. 879/2010, LA.APP. 880/2010, LA.APP. 8.81/2010 & I CM APPL.6505j2011, LA.APP. 882/2010, LA.APP. 883/20101 • LA.APP. 884/2010, • LA.APP. • 886/200, LA.APP., :88.8/2010 889/2010 & CM APPL.2249/2011, LAAPP. 890/2010; • • LA.APP. 893/2010 & CM APPL. 6750/2011, LA.APP. 894/2010. & CM • •, • No.23353/2010, LA.APP. 895/2010, LA.APP. 896/20101 LA.APP ' • . 897/2010 & CM APPL.728/2011, LA.APP. 903/2010, LA.'APP. . •.• • • •• • LA.APP.784/2005 & connected ' • . •.. Page 2 of 19 • • • • : .... . • • • 907/2010, LAAP'. 938/2010, LA.APP. 939/2010,. LA.APP. 1034/2010 & CM APPL. 3086/2011, LA.APP. 104012010 & 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. 1071/20100 LA,APP; 125/2011, LA.APP 126/2011, LA.AP.P. .258/2011 . (Relating to Notification u/s 4 dated 21.03.2003 & Award No.3.12005-06, Village-Mundka) ' . . .. . . . AND. . . + LAAPP 600/2009, LAAPP 605/7009 1 LAAPP 615/20091 LA.APP. 310/2010, LA.APP. 325/2010, LA.APP. 376/2010, LA.APP.. 383/2010, LA.APP. . 384/2010; LA.A'PP. 385/2010, . LA.APP. 473/2010, .LA.APP. 492/2010, LA.APP. 586/2010, LA.APP. 591/2010, LA.APP. . 638/20101 LA.APP. 690/2010, LA.APP. 692/2010, LA.APP. 711/2010, LA.APP. 716/2010, LA.PPP. 763/2010, LA.APP.. '.872/2010, . LA.APP. 873/2010, LA.APP. H. 885/2010, LA.APP; '887/2010, LA.APP. . 891/2D10,''LA.APP. 892/2010, LA.APP. 898/2010, LA.APP. 906/2010 & CM APPL; No.4443/2010,' LA.APP. 937/2010 & CM APPL. ' 23299/2010, LA.APP. 1042/2010, LA.APP, 1047/2010 . (Relating to Notification u/s 4 dated 21.03.2003 & Award No.1/2005-06, 'Villag'e-Mundka) . ..'. .. . . AND .LA.APP.• 1003/2010, LA.APP•. 1017/2.010, 'LA.APP." 1019/2010, LA.APP. 1022/2010, LA.APP. 1023/2010, LA.APP. 1044/20101 LA.APP. '1051/2010, LA.APP. 1053/2010; LA.APP. 1054/2010 & ' CM AP.PL. . No.5656/2011, LA, APP. '1055/2010, LA.APP. 1057/2010, LAAPP 1058/2010, LAAPP 1059/2010, LAAPP 1068/2010, LAAPP 1069/2010, LAAPP 124/2011, LAAPP 127/2011, LA APP 128/2011, LA APP 259/2011 LA.AP.784/2005 & connected ' . , Page 3 of 19 .1' . '. . , . . . . .. .. . ... .. ... . . • •.. (Relatin.g to NOtification u/s .4 dated .1.7.062005 •& Award No.13/2006-07, Viilage-Muncka) • AND ••: : LA.APP. 40/2009 & Cross Obj.ectidns, LA.APP. 426/2009, • LA.APP. 428/2009, 442/2009, LA.APP. 611/2009, LA.APP. 616/2009, LA.APP. 278/2010 (Relating to Notification u/s 4 dated 24 09 2003 & Award • No.3/2004-05, Village-Bakkarwala). . . .. AND • . ± LA.APP. :1029/2010 & CM No.5948/2011, LA.APP. 1030/2010, LAAPP. 1.031/2010, 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. 1:1/2011, LA.APP. 122/2.011 (Relating to Notifkation u/s 4 dated 1706.2005 & Award • . . No.1/2006-07, Village-Bakkarwala) . . • . • CORAM: • ;• • • • : • .• HON'BLE MR. JusTicE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG .1 • Whether the Reporters of local paprsmaybealiowed to seethe judgment? . •. • • To.be referred to Repoér or not .. . . . Whether the judgnent should be reported in the Digest? .. PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, I (Oral) 1. • I am. deciding the above rcaptioned appeals and •. relatable civil miscellaneous applications which are by way of cross objections, all of which have been Iisted hereinabove LA.APP.784/2005 &connected .. . Page4of 19 . . . IC 2. The pesent decision .c.oncerns• issue of fixáion of fair, market value of land in the revenue estate of Village Bakkarwala and village Mundka. 3. The dates on which thir market value of the land has to be determined may be graphically noted as under - S.No. Name of VillaQe Date of notification under . . . Section 4 of the LA Act BakkarwIa . 24.9.2003 . Bakkarwala 17.6.2005 . Mundka 25.2.1997 Mundka 21.3.2003 .5. Mundka •. 17.6.20.05. .. . 4. It may be highlighted that the notification at serial No.2 herelnabove, pertaining to village Bakkarwala, is the sme pursuant whereto lands were acquired in the revenue estate of Village Mundka;as•er serial No.5 above. . . . • 5. Abutting NH40, leading frbmthe dity of.Delhi to the township pfRohtak in the State of Haryana, are vilIagés'Mundka, Ghevra and Tikri Kalan Village Bakkarwala lies towards the • other side of the Southern boundary, of village Mundka. The difference between the topology of the two villages is; whereas the land of village, Mundka abuts NH-b, that of village 4_1 - Bakkarwala does not so abut being on the other 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 first, followed by village • Ghevra and- therl viIlaeTikri Kalan. • Agricultural lands in village Mundka were acquired • • LAAPP.784/2005 & connected • • •; Page Sof 19 : • pursuant to a nOtification dated 25.2.1997 issued underSection 4 of the Land Acquisition Act as per award No.2/1999/20.00. Agricultural 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 Acuisition Act as peraward No.3/2005-06 as also award No.1/2005-06. Further lands inthe.' revenue estate of the same village were acquired.pursuaflt to a notification dated 17 6 2005 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisftion Act as per Award No.13/2006-07. 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 LandAcquisition Act as per Award No.3/2004-05. Further lands in the revenue estate of the same village were acquired pursuant to a notification dated 17.6.2005 (the same notification under which lands in village 1undka were acquired) as per award No.1/2006-07. ...• 9 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 • . 10. 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 minimum price for agricultural land notified . with effect from 1.41997 @ T10 lacs per acre and since the date of Section 4 nOtification. was anterior in point of time, discounted LA.APP.784/2005 & connected . Page 6 of 19 • ,t. the price for one year @ 11 5% per annum Thispnce was adopted for category A lands For lands in category B, the value was further•dlscounted by Z9 ,0,000/- per acre. Pertaning tb'the notifications dated 213.2003 and: 24.9.2003, the Land • Acquisition Colièctr relied upon the notification fixing the minimum price of agricultural land as Of 1.4.2001 and aie no benefitof enhancement with reference to the fact that the fair market value of the' lands to be determined was as of 21.3.200.3 • and 24.9.2003. Even pertaining to the notification dated 17.6.2005 which required fair market valUe of land to be determi'ned in the revenue estate of village Bakkarwala and .: village Mundka as of 17 6 2005, the Land Acquisition Collector determined the same with reference to the notificatio -ri fixing minnium value of agricultural lands in Delhi as of 1 4 2001 ajid gave no increase. 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 18.94 and ; on the reference being made, vide • various judgments and decrees, which are under chailenge 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. • • • • • • • • • . In a • nut shell, pertahing to the notification dated • • • 25.2.1997 vide which agricultural lands in village Mundká were • , acquired the Reference Court adopted the same notification as was adopted by the Land Acquisition Collector under which the LA.APP784/2005 & connected ' , . Page 7 of 19 •• - . Gojernnent of NCT Delhi had fixéd.the miimurn vakie-for agricultural land in Delhi i.e. 1.4.1997, but as against the Land Acquisition Co!letor 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 1.41997 and the notification under, Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was dated 25.2.1997. This was the value fixed for category A lands and for category B lands; withY reference to the values for category A land depressed the same by 90,000/- per acre. - -. 13. . Thus, for categOry A lands the Reference Court determined the fair market value @ 9,89,288/- per acre and for • category B land the same was determined @ 8,99 1 288/- per . acre. -. .14. Pertaining to the notifications dated. 21.3.2003; 6 nd 24 9 2003 whereunder agricultural lands in village Mundka and • village Ba ,kkarwala respectively vere' acquired, the Reference Court took note of the fad that after the Government had - notified the 'rninimum.rates for agricultural lands in Delhi as of 1.4.2001 the ,next reviion was as..of 30.8.2005. Using.the said dates and the minimum price notified by the Government of NCT Delhi, the Reference Court adopted the -principle- of - mean' a.verage. Whatthe Reference COurt did was to adopt the value 1 4 2001 by as of and increasing the same 10% per annum determined the enhanced price: as of 21.3.2003 as - also - - 249.2003 'Thereafter the Reference Court -tobk the value -- 'notified as of 30.8.2005 and, depressing the same bylO% per " LA.APP.784/2005 & connected ' . Page 8 of 19, . - Jtl annum detemined tie sum rrived at as of 21.3.2003 as also 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 15,92,215/4. For the. date 249.2003 the price determined was 20,4000I.per acre. Pertaining to the notification dated 17.6.2005 pursuant whereto agricultural lands were. acquired in village Bakkarwala and Mundka the learned Reference Court adopted the minimum price for agricultural lands notified - by 'the: Government of NCT Delhi with effect from 1 4 2001 and giving increase @10°/9 per annum determined the value and with respect to the lands in village Mundka, on account of locational advantage, being abutting NH-10 gave 5% more and determined the fair market value as of 17.6.2005 in surn of 21,37,017.75 per acre and for viflagle Bakkarwala the. price • determined wa 20,3,255/- per acre. • ' ' • In the aforesaid backdrop of the factual scenario in which I have penned. profiled the "reasoning of the Land Acquisftion Collector as also that of the Reference Court, I delve into the argumentsadvan,ced before me during hearing today.. 17. With reference 4o the evidence led in LAC No.384/2004 /amna V$. 110/ & Ors., it was urged by .Sh.L.B.Rai, • learned counsel for the appellant in LA App.No.784/2005, which argument was adopted by other learned counsel who appeared for the other appellants, that the learned Trial Judge was not justified in ignoring the sale deed Ex.P-1 whereundér 1 bigha. • • LA.AP.P.784/2005 & connected, . Page 9 of 19 It and 3 biswa of agricultural land in village Mundka Was sold as of 5 8 1996 for a sale consideration of 4,75,000I- fl8,000!- was incurred towards 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 4,46,000/- 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 5 8 1996 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 3 2003 and 17 6 2005, i.e. the dates when notifications under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act were issued pursuant 4b whereto agricultural lands were acquired in village Mundka, by increasing the price progressively, if not by 12 6/o 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 Bakkarwala are contiguous villages, and in fact village Tikri Kalan is further towards the township of Rohtak, some increase be made in the value of the land, in village Mundka and Bakkarwala with reference to the judgment and decree dated 19 12 2008 deciding a batch of Land Acquisition Appeals, lead matter being LA Appeal No 193/2006 Pratap S,ngh (Deceased) Thr. LR5 Vs UO/ as per which fair market value of land per bigha, was determined in the revenue estate of village Tikri Kalan as of 16 11 1995, 11 6 1996 and 17 12 2002 at 2,15,164/- for category A land LA APP 784/2005 & connected Page 10 of 19 I' and 1,73,500/- for, category B land, 2,35,850 for category A land and 1,90,1 50/-. for category B lahd; 4,02,850/- for category A land and 3 1 24,850/- for category B land, respectively. 18 I may note here that in various land acquisition references, various parties have proved a humber of sale deeds executed from time to time, Put during aruments today before me,:'learnedr counsel for the land owners have only relied upon the sale deed Ex.P-1. S . .. . 19. Per contra, Sh.Sanjay Poddar léarned.coünsel for the UOl would urge that the sale price as per ExP-1 cannot be • adopted as. the yardtick for the reason, to be a, representative sample of the whole, the sample must bear some adequate proportion to the whole. For example, learned counsel would urge that if it has to be determined whethler 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 drain happens tobe a pieceof 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 secbohd reason on which . .• learned counsel would attack the sale deed as not being is the that do cOme to representative of the price reason people know about pending acquisition 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 & qonnected - • • . Page .11 of9 - • • I . . . . . • S . S • . • .S of the Land Acquisition Act. Learhed 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 bythis Court as the reasonsasto why, • Ex.P-1. be not tken as the basis to determine the fair market value of lands in village •Mundka and Bakkarwala. Thirdly, learned 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, • 30.5.1997,4.6.1997 and 8.9.1.997. relied upon by UOl would show the •actual market value of the land:. and thus learned counsel 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 Governrtent, 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 notification.wereJsued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act. • 20 An independent and alternative argument J5., 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) D LT 2 31 Ia! S!nh Vs. UQI. ' • •. • • • • 21. • The decision in /a! S!nh's case (supra) concerns itself • H • with the determination of thefair market value of land ir village Bakkarwala which were acquired pursuant to a notification • • . dated 15.10.1993. at1,32;0.00R per bigha. Learned counsel • would urge that the said decision has attained finality inasmuch • LA.APP.784/2005 & connected • • . . Page 12 of 19 •. • . . as Petitions for Special Leave to Appeal filed before the Supreme Court by either side have been dismissed. Learned cOunsel takes the argument forward by urging that by adopting the fair market \flue of land in village Bãkkarwala as of 15.10.1993 at 1,.32,000I: per bigha, the fair mrket value should be ascerta.ined by increasing the price, progressi.yely. by 10% per annum todetermine the market value of iland in. village Bakkarwala as of 2.4.9.003 as also .17.6.2005. Learned.counSel would urge 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% increase: ., . . 22 With respect to the sale deed Ex.-1, wheeunder 1. bigha and 3 biswa of agricultural land was sold in Village Mundka as of 5.8.1996, it would assume importance that the 1, sale is about 7 months prior to the date Of the notification issued under Section 4 of the Lard Acquisition Act, .which was issued on 25.2.1997. It is a matter of, common knowledge that preceding . the publication of a notificatiOn upde Section •4 of the Land Acquisition Act, survey's are carried, out with the object of 'determini'ng as to what lands, 'comprised in which khasra numbers and fields are required to be' notified for the proposed acquisition .nd when this happens people in the area tome to know that vry soon there is every likelihood that the lands would 'be acquired. ln'Delhi, the large scale acquisiti .on. policy enjoins upon the Government to allot, at pre determined rates, a plot of developed residential land to the ones whose lands are LA.APP784/2005 & connected , ., . ' , Page 13 of 19 Il acquired and thus, it is not uncommon, for persons to purchase small parcels of lands in areas where acquisitiOs are likely to take place; these transactions are speculative and cannot be taken to be a representative measure of the fair market value of lad 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 lkeference Court, but for the twin reasoning hitherto-fore noted, I hold that Ex.P-1 cannot be good evidence wherefrom, market value of the land could be determined There is an additional reason not to:rely upon the said sale deed. The sale deeds Ex.R-. 1 to Ex.R-4, dated 6.1.1995, 30.5.1997, 4.6.1997 and 8.9.1997 are also petainiflg to Village Mundka and reflect a sale price uch lower than the sale price rec.orded in Ex.P-1. In' 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 Governeflt. Thus, the fair market value of the lands would be required to be fixed either with reference to the decision of this 0 pratap5iflg/7 -ca5e (supra). I highlight that both decisions, pennd by the Division Bench of this Court have been upheld by the Supreme Court. The decision in 5ingcase(suP) determined fair rnarket value of land in Village BakkarWla in sum of 1,32,000/- er big ha a of 15.10.1993, and the perusal thereof, • Page 14of19 LA.APP.784/2005 &connected • • f • • C Jo would show that the Court asSessed the fair market value with reference to sale deeds executed between the years 1990 titl the year 1996 either in Village Tikri Kalan or Village Mundka, apparently on the premise that being contiguous villagers, sale price of agriculturâl land in the 2 adjoining villages would be indicative of fair market value of land in Village Bakkarwala 26., In Pratap