} 3 $-178 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + LA.APP.1062/2010 UOI Appellant Through: Mr.Sanjay Poddar, Advocate with Ms.Deepika, Advocate versus AJIT & ORS Respondents Through: Mr.Arun Birbal, Advocate for DDA CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG ORDER % 08.07.2011 CM No.23055/2010 1. There is a delay in filing the appeal. 2. The delay is condoned. 3. Application is allowed. LA.APP.1062/2010 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 HEW D^LHI %■ + JAMNA UOl Sl ORS n^tp of Dec'^'^ri- lulv, 2011, I A APP. 784/2005 /Appellant Throuah: Mr.L.B.Rai, AdvocatG, ^ Mr.l.S.Dahiya, Advocate, Mr.D.S.Lakra, Advocate, Mr.K.Sunil, Advocate, Mr.Anuj Bhandari, Advocate Mr.Shadam Farashat, Advocate Versus Respondents ThrouJih: Mr.Sanjay Poddar, Standing ■ Counsel (L7\)', GNCT Delhi with [vis.Deepika, Mr.Sachin, Nawani and Mr. Siddharth Panda Advocates . Mr.Ajay Verma, Ms.Kanika Agnihotri', Mr.Kunal Sharma, Mr.Sumer Sethi, Mr.B.B.Sharma, Ms.Shobhna Takiar and Mr.Arur^ Birbal, Advocates,for DDA AND n,. lb t "i \ iV ' )! U I |K + LA.APP. 879/2005, LA.APP. 880-881/2005, LA.APP^ 121/2005, 143/2007 (Relating to Notification u/s 4 da e 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. 606/2009, LA.APP. 610/2009, 74/2010, LA.APP. 78/2010, ^ LA.APP.784/2005 & connected Page 1 of 19 ■ii; I 41 'y LA.APP. 79/2010, LA.APP. 121/2010, LA.APP. 122/2010, LA.APP. 185/2010, 238/2010, 244/2010, 251/2010, 267/2010, 275/2010, 326/2010, 330/2010, LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. 125/2010, LA.APP. 164/2010, LA.APP. 186/2010, LA. APP. 200/2010, LA.APP. 239/2010, LA.APP. 243/2010, LA.APP. 245/2010, LA.APP. 247/2010, LA.APP.' 252/2010, LA.APP. 266/2010, LA.APP. 273/2010, LA.APP. 274/2010, LA.AI^P. 312/2010, LA.APP. 324/2010, LA. APP. 327/2010, LA.APP. 329/2010, 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, LA.APP. 694/2010, LA.APP. 696/2010 & CM APPL. No. 6340/2011, LA.APP. 697/2010, LA.APP. 698/2010 & CM APPL. 1734/2011, LA.APP. 706/2010 & 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.7473/2010, 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. 829/2010, LA.APP. 831/2010 & CM APPL. 955/2011, LA.APP. 832/2010, LA.APP. 833/2010 & CM APPL. 6392/2011, LA.APP. 834/2010, LA.APP. 842/2010, LA.APP. 871/2010, LA.APP. 874/2010, LA.APP. 875/2010, LA.APP. 876/2010, LA.APP. 877/2010, LA.APP. 878/2010, LA.APP. 879/2010, LA.APP. 880/2010, LA.APP. 881/2010 & CM APPL.6505./2011, LA.APP. 882/2010, LA.APP. 883/2010, LA.APP. 884/2010, 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 APPL.728/2011, LA.APP. 903/2010, LA.APP. LA.APP.784/2005 & connected . Page 2 of 19 s 907/2010, LA.APP. 936/2010, LA.APP. 939/2010, LA.APP. 1034/2010 & CM APPL. 3086/2011, LA.APP. 1040/2010 & CM APPL. 5673/2011, LA.APP. 'l041/2010, 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, Village-Mundka) AND -f LA.APP. 600/2009, LA.APP. 605/2009, LA.APP. 615/2009, LA.APP.'310/2010, LA.APP. 325/2010, 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. 586/2010, 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, 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, Vi llage-Mundka) AND LA.APP. 1003/2010, LA.APP. 1017/2010, 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, LA.APP. 128/2011, LA.APP. 259/2011 LA.APP.784/2005 & connected Page 3 of 19 (Relating to Notification u/s 4 dated 17.06.2005 & Award No.13/2006-07, Viilage-Mundka) AND -1- LA.APP. 40/2009 & Cross Objections,' 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-BSkkarwala) AND + LA.APP. 1029/2010 & CM No.5948/2011, LA.APP. 1030/2010, LA.APP. 1031/2010, LA.APP. 1033/2010 & O^I No.6645/2011, LA.APP. 1062/2010, 1063/2010 & CM No.6943/2011, LA.APP. 1064/2010, LA.API?. 1066/2Q10, LA.APP. 1067/2010, LA.APP. 11/2011, LA./kj^p. 122/2011 (Relating to Notification u/s 4 dated 17.06.2005 & Award No.1/2006-07, Village-Bakkarwala') CORAMt HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG 1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to Reporter or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? PRADEEP NANDRAIOG. I. (Oral) 1. I am deciding the above captioned 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 19 2. The present decision concerns issue of fixation of fair t market value of land in the revenue estate of Village Bakkarwal© and village Mundka. 3- The dates on which fair market value of the land has to be determined may be graphically noted as under:- Name of Village Date of notification under Sect!Oh'4 of the LA Act 1- Bakkarwala 24.9.2003 2. Bakkarwala 17.6.2005 3. Mundka 25.2.1997 4. Mundka 21.3.2003 5. Mundka 17.6.2005 may be highlighted that the notification at serial No.2 hereinabove, pertaining to village Bakkarwala, is the same pursuant whereto lands were acquired In the revenue estate of Village M-undka; as per serial No'5 above. 5. Abutting NH-10, leading from the city of Delhi to the township of Rohtak in the State of Haryana, are villages 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-10, that of village Bakkarwala does not so abut; being on the other side of the Southern boundary of revenue estate of village Mundka. 6. As we proceed from the city of Delhi to the township of Rohtak, village Mundka is crossed first, followed by village Ghevra and then village Tikri Kalan. Agricultural lands in village Mundka were acquired LA.APP,784/2005 & connected Page 5Qf19 pursuant to a notification dated 25.2.1997 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act as per award No.2/L999/2000. 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 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 under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition 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 Land Acquisition Act as per Award No.3/2004-05. Further lands in the revenue estate of the same vi llage were acquired pursuant to a notification dated 17.6.2005 (the same notification under which lands in village Mundka 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 1.4.1997 @ ^10 lacs per acre and si>nce the date if Section 4 notification was anterior in point of time, discounted LA.APP.784/2005 & connected Page 6 of 19 s the price for one year @ 11.5% per annum. This price was. adopted for category'A lands. For lands in category B, the value was further discounted by ?90,000/- per acre. Pertaining to the notifications dated 21.3.2003 and 24.9.2003, the Land Acquisition Collector relied upon the notification fixing the minimum price of agricultural land as of 1.4.2001 and gave no benefit of enhancement with reference to the fact that the fair market value of the lands to be determined was as of 21.3.2003 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 village 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, the Reference Court adopted the same notification as was adopted by the Land Acquisition Collector under which the LA.APP.784/2005 & connected Page 7 of 19 \v 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 1.4.1997 and the notification under Section 4 of the Land AcquiS'ition Act was dated 25.2.1997. This was 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 ?90,000/- 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 @ ^8,99,288/- per acre. 14. Pertaining to the notifications dated 21.3.2003 and 24.9.2003 whereunder agricultural lands in village Mundka and village Bakkarwala respectively were acquired, the Reference Court took note of the fact that after the Government had notified the minimum rates for agricultural lands in Delhi as of 1.4.2001 the next revision 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 average. What the Reference Court did was to adopt the value as of 1.4.2001 and increasing the same by 10% per annum determined the Enhanced price as 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 1>, annum determined the sum arrived at as of 21.3.2003 as alsa 24.9.2003. The two sums arrived at were added and dfvided 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 1 note the sum arrived at is ^15,92,215/-). For the date 24.9.2003 the price determined.was ^20,41,000/- per acre. 15. Pertaining to the notification dated 17.6.2005 pursuant whereto agricultural lands were acquired in v^lage Bakkarwala and Mundka the learned Reference Court addpted the minimum price for agricultural lands liiotified by the Government of NCT-Delhi with effect from 1.4.2001 and giving increase @10% per annum determined the value and with respect to the lands in vi llage 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 sum of ^21,37,017.75 per acre and for village Bakkarwala the price determined was ^20,35,255/- per acre. 16. In the aforesaid backdrop of the factual scenario in which I have penned profiled the reasoning of the Land Acquisition Coilector as also that of the Reference Court, I delve into the arguments advanced before me during hearing today. 17. With reference to the evidence led in LAC Mn.3R4/2004 lamna l/s. UP! & 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 whereunder 1 bigha LA.APP.784/2005 & connected Page 9 of 19' 3 and 3 biswa of agricultural land in vi llage Mundka was sold as of 5.8.1996 for a sale consideration of ^4,75,000/-. ?38,000/- was incurred towards sale duty and thus the price of the land would be ^5,13,000/- and calculated with reference thereto, land price pe-r bigha would come to ^4,46,000/- as of 5.8.1996. Learned C(5unsel 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 ? whereto agricultural lands were acquired in vi llage 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 Jikri Kalan, Mundka and Bakkarwala are contiguous vi llages, 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 Pratan Sinoh (Deceased) Thr. LRs Ks. UP! .,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 M and 73,500/- for category B land; ?2,35,850 for category A land and ?1,90,1.50/- for category B land; ^4,02,85r0/- for category A land and ^3,24,850/- for category B land, respectively. 18, 1 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, learned counsel for the land owners have only relied upon the sale deed Ex.P-1. 19. Per contra, Sh.Sanjay Poddar learned counsel for the UDl 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 proportion to the whole. For example, learned counsel would urge that if it has to be determined whether wl^at percentage of stones are mixed in a bag of rice it would not be a safe method to pick only one gr^in, 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 counsel would attack the sale deed as not being representative of the price is the reason that people do come to know about .pending acquisition inasmuch as before a'cquisitions 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 & connected Page H of 19 ff 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, •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 8.9.1997 relied upon by UOI would /show the actuaj 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 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. 20. 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 laiSingh \/s. UOL 21. The decision in iaiSingh's case (supra) concerns itself 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 as Petitions for Special Leave tp Appeal filed before the Suprenne Court by either side have been dismissed. Learned counsel takes the argument forward by urging that by adopting the fair market value of land in village Bakkarwala as of 15.10.1993 at ^1,32,000/- per bi.gha, the fair market value should ^e ascertained by increasing the price progressively by 10% per annum to determine the market value of land in village Bakkarwala as of 24.9.2003 as also 17.6.2005. Learned counsel would urge that in view of the locatlonal 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.P-1, whereunder 1 bigha and 3 biswa of agricultural land was sold in Village Mundka as of 5.8.1996, it would assume importance that the sale is about 7 months prior to the date of the notification issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, which was issued on 25.2.1997. It is 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, at pre determined rates, a plot of developed residential land to the ones whose lands qre LA.APP.784/2005 & connected acquired and thus, it is not uncofnnnon, for persons to purchase smaii parcels of lands in areas where acquisitions are likely to take place: these transactions are speculative 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, ,1 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 pertaining to 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 tfian 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 reference to the decision of this Court in l^rSinah's case (supra) or Pr^tap Singh's case (supra). 24, n i highlight that both decisions, penned by the Division Bench of this Court have been upheld by the Supreme Court. 25, The decision in to/ Singh's case (supra) "determined fair market value of land in Village Bakkarwala in sum of Tl,32,000/- per bigha as of 15.10.1993, and the perusal thereof Page 14 of 19 LA.APP.784/2005 & connectetd would show that the Court assessed 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 agficuiturai lands in Tikri Kalan and another adjoining Vil'iage named Ghevra and pertaining to various notifications issued under Section 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 Vi llage Price per Bigha 1. 24.07.1995 ^ 16.11.1995 Tikri Kalan ?2,15,160/- for Biock A & n,73,500/- for Block B land 2. 11.06.1996 Tikri Kalan & Ghevra , ^2,35,815/- for Biock A & n,90,156/- for Block B land 3. 17.12.2002 Tikri Kalan ?4,02,850/- for Block A & f3,24,850/- for Block B land 27. Following the judgment in Pratao Singh'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 &f;onnected Page 15 of 19 Acquisition Appeal No,489/2009, Ann on 2.6.2011. I have determined the fair market va ue ^ds in Village Ghevra at ?4,03.425/- per bigha as of 6.2.200 ^ on the issue of comparability of land in village Bakkarwaia i^th Village Mundka, Ghevra and Tikri Kalan, it is no dou t rue le eas village Bakkarwala does not abut NH 10 as do . other villages, but it has to be highlighted that it ,s more proximate to the urban areas of Delhi Kalan and to that extent, qua said 2 villages, has an adv ge Since exactness can never be achieved in the matters assessing fair compensation, it is the broad probabilities and Similarities which matter. Thus, . hold ail 4 -liages to be equivalent, unless qua some land special features can be hown 28 Since the decision in Praim^mh^ case-(supra)^ deals with notifications more proximate in point of time to the notifications with which 1 am concerned, i am of the opinion it would be just, fair and proper to determine t e fa.r m r value of lands with which , am concerned ,n reiabon t he f.r market value of lands determined in PratSRSmM ^^ P ^ AS per the decision mMStaJLM23l2!s case (supra) for the d 24 7 1995, for Category A lands fair compensation assessed was ?2 15,150/- per bigha and ?1,73,500/- per bigha for Category B land The first notification with which I am concerned is 25 2 1997 whereunder