$-37 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + LA.APP.247/2010 RAKESH Appellant Through: Mr.L.B.Rai,Advocate versus UNION OF INDIA& ORS. Respondents Through: Mr.Sanjay Poddar, Advocate for,R-1 Mr.Kunal Sharma, Advocate forDDA • . HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NAN DRAJOG ORDER % 08.07.2011 For orders, see LA.APP.No. 784/2005. I 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 LAAPP 79/2010, LAAPP 121/2010, LAAPP 122/2010 1 LAAPP 125/2010, LAAPP 164/2010, LAAPP 185/2010, LAAPP 186/2010, LA APP 200/2010, LA APP 238/2010 1 LA APP 239/2010, LAAP-P--2-4-32-0.1.0 APP 20/20101 LA APP 245/2010, (LAAPP 247/2010, LAAPP' 251/2010, LAAPP 252/2010, LAAPP 266/20101 LAAPP 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 327/2010, LA APP 329/2010 1 LA APP 330/2010, LA A P P,. 331/2010, LA APP 332/2010, LA APP 333/2010 with CM APPL No 5524/2011, LAAPP 335/2010, LAAPP 367/2010, LAAPP 368/2010, LA APP 36912010, LA APP 371/2010 & CM APPL No 20099/2010, LAAPP 374/2010, LAAPP 375/2010, LAAPP 377/2010, LAAPP 379/2010, LAAPP 423/2010, LAAPP 452/2010, LAAPP 461/2010, LAAPP 472/2010, LAI\PP 694/2010, LA APP 696/2010 & CM APPL No 6340/2011, LA APP 697/2010, LAAPP 698/2010 & CM APPL 1734/2011, LAAPP 0 706/2010 & CM APPL 17215/2010, LAAPP 707/2010, LAAPP 708/2010 LA APP 709/2010, LA APP 710/2010 with Cf1 APPL No 2568/2011, LA APP 713/2010 with CM APPL No 7473/2010, LAAPP 715/2010, LAAPP 717/2010, LAAPP 71912010, LAPPI 766/2010, LAAPP 796/2010, LAAPP 797/2010 1 LAAPP 798/2010, LAAPP 799/2010, LAAPP 818/2010, LAAPP 819/2010, LAAPP 829/2010, LAAPP 831/2010 & CM APPL 955/2011, LAAPP 832/2010, LAAPP 833/2010 & CM APPL 6392/2011, LAAPP 834/2010, LAAPP 842/2010, LAAPP .871/20101 LA.APP. 874/2010, . LA.AP. 875120.1.0, LAAPP 876/2010, LAAPP 877/2010, LAAPP 87812010, LAAPR 879/2010, LA APP 880/2010, LA APP 881/2010 & CM APPL6505/2011 LAAPP 882/2010, LAAPP 883/2010, LAAPP 884/2010 LAAPP 886/2010, LAAPP 888t2010, LAAPP 889/2010 & CM APPL2249/2011, LAAPP 890/2010, LAAPP • 893/2010 & CM APPL 6750/2011, LA APP 894/2010 CM No 23353/2010, LA APP 895/2010, LA APP 896/2010 1 LAJAPP 897/2010 & CM APPL 728/2011, LA APP 903/2010, LAIAPP LA APP 784/2005 & connected Page 2 of 19 907/2010, LAAPP 938/2010, LAAPP 939/2010, LAAPP 1034/2010 & CM APPL 3086/2011, LA APP 104012010 & CM APPL 5673/20111 LA APP 1041/2010, LA A P P..1043/2010, LA APP 1045/2010, LA APP 1046/2010, LA APP 1048/2010, LA APP 1049/20 10, LA APP 1050/2010 LA APP 1056/2010 4 LAAPP 1060/2010, LAAPP 1061/2010,LAAPP 1071/2010, 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 3/2005-06, Village-Mundka) AND + LAAPP 600/2009, LAAPP 605/206.9, LAAPP 615/2009, LA APP 310/2010, LA APP 325/2010, LA APP 376/2010, LA APP 383/2010, LAAPP 384/2010, LAAPP 385/2010, LAAPP 473/2010, LA APP 492/2010, LA APP 586/2010, LAAPP 591/20101 LAAPP 638/2010, LAAPP 690/2010, LAAPP S 692/2010, LAAPP 711/2010, LAAPP 716/2010, LAAPP 763/2010, LAAPP 872/2010, LAAPP 873/2010, LAAPP 885/2010, LAAPP 887/2010, LAAPP 891/2010, LAAPP 892/2010, LA APP 898/2010, LA APP 906/2010 & CM APPL No4443/2010, LAAPP 937/2010 & CM APPL 23299/20101 LA APP 1042/20 10, LA APP 1047/20 10 (Relating to Notification u/s 4 dated 21 03 2003 & Award No 1/2005-06, Village-Mundka) AND LAAPP 1003/2010, LAAPP 1017/2010, LAAPP 1019/2010, . LA APP 1022/2010, LA APP 1023/2010, LA APP 1044/2010, LAAPP 1051/2010, LAAPP 1053/2010, LAAPP 1054/2010 & 0 CM APPL No 5656/2011, LA APP 1055/2010, LAAPP 1057/2010, LAAPP 1058/2010, LAAPP 1059/2010, LAAPP 1068/2010, LA.APP., 1069/2010, LA.APP.. 124/2011 1 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 + LA APP 40/2009 & Cross Objections, LA APP 42612009, LAAPP 428/2009, 442/2009, LAAPP 611/2009, LAAPP 616/2,0091 LA APP 278/2010 (Relating to Notification u/s 4 dated 24 09 2003 & Award No 3/2004-05, Village-Bakkarwala) AND + LAAPP 1029/2010 & CM No5948/2011, LAAPP 1030/20101 LA APP 1031/2010, LAAPI 1033/2010 & CM No6645/2011, LAAPP 1062/2010, 1063/2010 & CM No 6943/2011, LAAPP 1064/2010, LAAPP 1066/2010, LAAPP 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 NANDRAJOG 1 Whether the Reporters of local paper may be allowed to see the judgment? 2s To be referred to Reporter or not? 3 Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, 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 LAAPP784/2005&connected Page4ofl9 2 The present decision concerns ise of fixation of fa market yalue of land in the revenue estate of'Villae B8kkarwa1 and village Mundka 3 The dates on which fair market value of the land has to be determined may be graphically noted as under. - S No Name of Village Date of , notification under Section 4 of the LA Act 1Bakkarwala 24 9 2003 2 Bakkarwala 17 6 2005 3 Mundka 25 2 1997 4 Mundka 21 3 2003 5 Mundka 17 6 2005 4 It 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 Mundka, 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-lU, that ofvillage Bakkarwala does not so abut, being on the other side of the Southern boundary of revenue estate of village Mundka S 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 7 Agricultural lands in village Mundka were acquired LA APP 784/2005 & connected Page 5 of 19 pursuant to a notification dated 25 2 1997 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act as per award No 2/1999/2000 Agricultural lands in the revenue estate df 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 I 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 thvenue estate of, the same village 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 minimumprice for agricultural land as notified by the Government of NCT Delhi 10 For clarity I may note that pettainingi to the notification dated 25 2 1997 under which agricultural lands in the revenue estate of village Mundka were acquired, the learned S Land Acquisition Collector determined the fair market value with reference to the minimum price for agricultural lahd notified with effect from 1 4 1997 @ Z10 1 lacs per acre and since the date of Section 4 notification was anterior in point of time, discounted A APP 784/2005 & connected Page 6 of 19 annum determined the sum arrived at s of 2 3 2003 as also 24 9 200 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 15 Pertaining to the notification dated 17 6 2005 pursuant whereto agricultural lands were acquired in V11. 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% per annum determined the value and with respect to the lands in village Mundka, on account of locational advantage, being abutting NH-lU ave 5% more and determined the fair market value as o 17 6 2005 in sum of 21 1 37 1 017 75 per acre and for, village Bakkarwala the price determined was 20,35,2551- per acre 16 In the aforesaid backdrop of the factual scenario in which I have penned profilep the reasoning of, the Land Acquisition C011ector, as also that of the Reference Court, I delve into the arguments advanced before me durin g hea ring today 17 With reference to the evidence led in LAC No 384/2004 /amna Vs 001 & Ors, it wa's urged by Sh L B Rai, learned counsel for the appellant in LA App No 784/2005, which , argument was adopted by other learned }ounsel who appeared for the other appellants, that the learned Trial Judge was not justified in ignoring the sale deed Ex P-i 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 of 4,75,000/- 38,000/- was incurred towards sale duty and thus the price of the land Would be 5,13 1 000/- 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 4,461000/- per bigha as of 5 8 1996 Taking the argument forward, it is urged that with reference to the said price, fai 1r market value needs to be determined as of 25 2 1993, 21.12003 2003 and 17 6 2005, i e the dates when notifications under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act were issued pursuan 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 Alternati'iely, 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 LRs Vs £10! 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 1 15 1 164/- for category A land LA APP 784/2005 & connected Page 10 of 19 • . . •'• and l,73,500I 7 for category B land, 2,35,850 for. category A land and 1,90,150/- for category B land, 4,02,850/- for category A land and 3,24,850I- for categOry B land, respectively. 18 I may note here th in various land acquisitioh references, various parties have 6roved,a number f sale deeds executed from time to time, but during arguments today before me, learned counsel for the land owners have bnly relied upon the le deed Ex P-i 19 Per contra, Sh Sanjay Poddar learned counsel for the UOI twould urge that the sale price as per Ex P-i cannot be adoed as the yardstick for the reason, t be a representaive samp'e of the whole, the sample must bear some adequate propction to the whole For example, learned counsel would if, it has to be determined whether what percage of urgehat ent stons are mixed in a bag of rice it would not be a safe method to plould k only one grain, for if it happens to be the grain of rice one lead to the conclusion that the bag is 100% full of rice and i 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 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 & connected Page 11 of 19 2. of the Land Acquisition Act Learned counsel would concede that the reasons given by the leard Reference Court re not sound, but would urge that the tv contentions advaned by, him should be considered by this Cciurt as the reasons as to why Ex P-i be not taken as the basis to detern-iine thie fair market value of lands in village Mundka and Bakkarwala Thirdly, learned counsel would further urge that t h e four sale deeds Ex R-1 to R-4 referred to in the decisibn 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 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 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 /aisingh Vs 1101 S with 21 The decision in /a,Singh's case (supra) concerns itself the determination of the fair market value of land in village Bakkarwala which were acquired pursuant to a notification dated 15 10 1993 at fl,32,000I- per bigha Learned counsel would urge that the said decision has attained finality, inasmuch LA APP 784/2005 & connected Page 12 of 19 acquired and thus, it is not uncommon, for persons to purchase /fJ small parcels of lands in areas where acquisitions are likely to ns are speculative take place, these transactio and cannot be taken to be a representative measure of the fair market yalue 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-i 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-i 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 I 23 Thus, the fair market value of , the lands would be required to, be fixed either with reference to the decision of this Court inJjSInQtLcase (supra) or Pratap 5,ngh's case (supra) 24. I highlight that both decisions, penned by the Division Bench of this Court have been upheld by the Supreme Court 25 The decision in ji5inah'5 case (supra) determined fair market value of land in Village Bakkarwala in sum of fl,32,000/- per bigha as of 15 10 1993, and the perusal thereof 4 LA APP 784/2005 & connected Page 14 of 19