$-28 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + LA.APP.164/2010 DAYA RAM & ORS. Appellants Through: Mr.L.B.Rai, Advocate versus • UNION OF INDIA& ORS. Respondents Through: Mr.Sanjay Poddar, Advocate for R-1 Mr.B.B.Sharma, Advocate for DDA CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NAN DRAJOG 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 . . . . . . ,...... '1 * . . INTHE HIGH CQUaT OF. DELHI AT NEW DEH I .. • • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . : . : • • . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . /o Date ofDecLSIOfl 8th LUIY 221 + uAPP784L2QO5.. : . : . . . : . •: . .,.. .. . JAMNA . . . ,. . AppelIan . . Through Mr L B Ral, Advocate, Mr I S Dahiya, Advocate, Vi Mr D S Lakra, Advocate, : • Mr.K.Suriil, Advocate, Mr Anuj Bhandarl, Advocate Mr Shadam Farashat, Advocate ft . . . .. : • . . .. , . . .. Versus ,. (Joi & ORS ' • .. Respondents . . a7 rSanjayPoddar,Stand Through w Counse' (LA), GNCT Delhi with Ms Deepka, Mr Sachn Nawani and Mr Siddharth Panda Advocates Mr Ajay Verma, Ms Kanika 3, Aghihotri, Mr.Kuna Shar.ma, Mr Sumer Seth', Mr B B Sharma, Ms Shobhna Takiar and Mr Arun Birbal, Advoate5 for DDA AND '9 ± LA.APP. 879/2005 AP: , LA.P. 880-881/2005, LA..APP. 121/2006, 143/2007 (R&ating to Notification u/s 4 dated & 25.02.1997 & Award No.2/1999-2000, ViHage Mundka) AND + LA APP 583/2009, LA APP 603/2009, LA APP 604/20091 LA APP 606/2009, LA APP 610/2009, 74/2010, LA APP 78/2010, LA APP 784/2005 & connected Page 1 of 19 44 Awl 1 Ar r a" LAAPP 79/2010, LAAPP 121/2010, LAAPP 122/2010, LAAPP 125/2010, LAAPP 164/2010, LAAPP 185/2010, LAAPP 186/2010, LA APP 200/2010, LAAPP 238/2010, LAAPP 239/ 0 AAPP 243/2010, LAAPP 244/2010, LAAPP 245/2010 .LA;APP 247/2010, ,.LA.APP. 251/2010, . LAAPP..' 252/2010, . LA.APP. 266/2010, LA.APP. 267/20101 LA..APP. 273/2010., LA;APP. .274/2010, .LA.APP. . 275/2010, LA.APP. 312/2010 1 LA.AP. 324/2010, L.A.APP. 326/2010, LA.APP; 327/2010, LA.APP. . 329/2010,. LA.APP. 30/2010, LA.APP 331/2010, LA.APP. 332/2.010, LA.APP. 1333/2010 with CM APPL No. 5524/2011, LA.APP. 335/20.10, LA.•APP. 367/2010, LA:APP. 368/200, LA.APP. .369/2010, LA.APP. 371/2010 & CM APPIr . 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.AP. 461/2010, LA.APP. 472/2010, LA:APP. 694/2.010, 697/2010, LA.AP. 696/2010 & CM APPL. No.. LAAPP 698/2010 & CM APPL 6340/2.01, 1734/2011, LA.APP. LAAPP 706/2010 & CM APPL 17215/2010, LAAPP 707/2010, LAAPP 708/2010, LA APP 709/2010, LA APP 710/2010 with Cv'1 APPL No 2568/2011, tLA.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, LAAPP. 798/2010, LA.APP. 799/2010, .LA.APP. 818/2010, LA.APP.. 819/2010, LA.APP. 829/2010, LA.APP. 831/2010 & 1CM. APPL. 955/2011, LA.APP. 832/2010, LA.APP . 833/2010 & CM APPL. 6392/2011, LA.APP. . 834/2010, . .LA.APP. • 84212010, LA.APR 871/2010, LA.APP. 74/2010, LA.APP. 875/2010, LAAPP .. 8715/2010, LA.APP 877/2010, LAAIP. 878/2010, LA.APP. .879/2010, LA.APP. 880/2010 •LA.APP. .881/2010 .....1CM. % APPL6505/2011 LAAPP 882/2010, LAAPP 883/2010,LAAPP 884/20101 LAAPP 886/2010, LAAPP 888/2010, 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.AP1. 895/2010, LA.APP. 896/2010, LA.APP. . 897/2010 & CM •APPL 728/2011 LA..APP: 90312010, LA.APP.. LA;APP.784/2005 & connected. : ' • . ' . Page 2 of 19 •• , . '. ..., 907/2010, LAAPP 938/2010, LAAPP 939/20101 LAAPP 1034/2010 & CM APPL 3086/2011, LA APP 1040/2010 & CM APPL 5673/2011, LA APP 1041/2010, LA APP 1043/2010, LA.APP. .1045/201:0, LA.APR. 1046/2010, LA.APP. 1048/2010, LA.APP. 1.049/Q10, L.A.APP. 1050/2010; LA.APP. 1056/2010, LA.APP, 1060/2010, LAAPP. 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 No3/2005-0, Villáge-Mundka) . . . . . ..: AND + LA.APP. .600/2009, LA.APP. 605/2009; LA.APP. 615/2009, H LA APP 310/2010, LA APP 325/2010, LA APP 376/2010, LA APP 383/2010, LA.APP. 384/2010, ;. LA.APP. 385/010, LA.APP. • 473/2010, LA.APP. 492/2010, •LA.APP. 586/20101 LA.APP. , 591/200, r LA.APP. 638/2010, LA.APP. 690/2010; LA.APP. 69.2/2010,, LA.APP. 711/2010, : LA.APP. 716/2010 LA.APP 763/2010, LAAPP 872/2010, LAAPP 873/20101 LAAPP 885/2010, • LA.APP. 887/20101 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 20O3 & Award No.1/200506, Vi!IageMundka.) . • • • . ..• .• ..• AND I LA.APP. 100.3/2010, LA.APP. 1017/2010, LA.APP. 1019/2010, . LAAPP. 102.2/2010, LA.APP. 1023/2010, LA.APP. 1044/2010, . I . . • LAAPP.. 1051/2010, LA.APP. 1053/2010, LA.APP: 1034/2010 & • . 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. 106912010, .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 . _________ ____ • _•• • • 7 (Relating to Notification u/s 4 dated 17 06 2005 & Award No.13/2006-07, ViHge-Mundka) AND + LA.APP.. 40/2009 & Cross :Objections, LA.APP. 426/2009, LAAPP 428/2009, 442/2009, LAAPP 611/2009, LAAPP 616/20091 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 No 5948/2011, LAAPP 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 o Notification u/s 4 dated .17.06005 & Award No 1/2006-07, Village-Bakkarwala) • ç0RAM: .. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAD.EEP NANDRAJOG 1. Whether the Reporters of löcl papers may be allowed • to see the juciQrnent? . . • : . .• .. •• •. •. • 2 To be referretO Reporter or not? 3 Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? PRADEEP NAN DRAJOG, j. (Oral) • • • • . 1. I am deciding the above cptioned appeals and relatable civil miscellaneous applications which are byway of cross objections; all of which have been listed hereinabove, . • LA APP 784/2005 & connected Page 4 of 19 • . • / g 2 The present decision concerns issue of f'xation of faIr market value of land in the revenue estate of Village Bakkarwaia and village Mundka 3.' The dates.on whichfa?jr market value of the lnd has to be determined may be graphically neJ as under - S.No,. Name of Village Date of notifiction under Section 4 of the LA Act 1. . Bakkarwala 24.9.2003 •' 2 Bakkarwa!a 17 6 2005 .3.. . Mundka 252.1997 . Mun.dka . 21..2003 . . . ,.. . Mundka 17.6.2005 . It may be highlightd that the notification at serial No.,2 hereinabove, pertaining to .viUage Bakkarwala, is the same pursuant whereto lands wre"acquired in the revenue.estte of Villag.e•Mundka; asper serial No.5 aboVe. . Abutting .NH-10, leading from the ity of Delhito the township of Rohtakin the State of Hary.na, are villages 4ündka, G.hevra and Tikri KaIap. Village::. Bakkarwata lies towardthe other, side of the Southern boudary of villge MpØka; The :difference between the topology of the two villages is; whereas' the land of village Mundka abuts. NH-lU, that of village Bakkarwãla 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 M.dndka is croSsed.. first, follbved by vIIlge 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 N'o.2/1999/2000 • Agricultural lands in the revenue estate of .viflage Mundka.ere further acquired pursuant to a notification dated 21.3.2003 issued under Section 4 of thle 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 acquird 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 revenup estate of 'village B'akk.arwala. 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 rvenue 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 sheli, the Land Acquisition Collector determined the fair rnarketvalue of the acquiredlands, under all the avard's, with reference: to the minftnum price for agricultural Iand.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'vitlage 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 @ Z10 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 H to the price for one year @ 11 50/(o per 'annum This price was adopted for category A lands For lands irtctegory B, the value was further discounfed by 90,000/- per adre Pertaning to the notifications dated 21 3 2003 and 24.9.2Q.03, Ie Land Acquisition Collector relied upon the notification fixing the minimum price of agricultural land as Of 1.4.2001 and gave no benefit of enhncemnt with reference to the fct that the fair market value of the lands to bed.etermin.ed was às of21.3.200.3 and 24 9 2003 Even pertaining to the notification dated .17.6.2005 which reqired fair n.. arket value of land to be determined in the reienue estate of village Bakai - ala. 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 CoJlctor, the land owners sought a reference under Section 1& 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'fairhiarket 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 C. adopted the same notifFcatlon as was adopted by the Land Acquisition Collector under which the A APP 784/2005 & connected Page 7 of 19 Govrnment 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, decreasetd 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 Acquisition 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 depessed the sahie by90,000I'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/ 7 per acre 14 Pertaining to the notifications daç 21 3 2003 and 24.9.2003 whereunder agricultural lands in vifl'ae Mundka and village Bakkarwala respectively were acquired, the Reference Court took note of the fact that after the Gbvernment , 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 minimurii.price notified by the Governrrent of NCT•. , Delhi, the Reference Court adopted the principle of mean a,ierage. . What the Reference Court did, was to adoptthe value a of 1 4 2001 and increasing the same by 10% per annum determined the enhanced price as of 21 3003 as also 24 9 2003 Thereafter the Reference Court took the value notified as of 30 8 2005 and depressing the sane by 10% per LA.APP.784/2005 & connected ' . . . Page 8 of 19 ' annum determined the sum arrived at as of 2,1A.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 U5,92,083 33 per acre (In some decisions I note the sum arrived at is 15,92,215/-). For the dãt 24.9.2003 the price deterrnined was 20,41,000/per acre. . •... 15 Pertaining to the notification dated 17 6 2005 pursuant whereto agricultural lands were acqirèd in village Bakkarwala and Mundka the learned Reference Court adopted the minimum price for agricultural lands hbtffied by the Government of NCT Delhi with effect from 1.4.2:001 and giving 1 increase @10% per annum. det.ermided the va.lue and ith respect to the lands in village Mundka, on account of locational avantage, being abutting NH-lU davp 5% more and determihéd the fair market value as of 17..29O5 in•sum of, . 21,37,017 75 per acre and for village B4akkariala the price determined Wa5, Z20,35,255/- per. acre. . . . . 16 In the aforesaid backdrop of the factual scenario in which I have penned profiled the reasoning of the Land Acquisition Collector as also that of the Reference Court, I delve into the arguments advanced before me during hearing today. 17 With reference to the evidenc led in LAC N.384/2004 Jain.na Vs. 1)0/ & 0s., it.. 'vas urgd by Sh.L.BRai; learned counsel for the appeftant in LA App No 784/2005, which argument was adopted by other learned counsel who appeared for the other appellants, that the learhed Trial judgé was not justified in ignoring the sale deed Ex P-i whereunder 1 bigha LA APP 784/2005 & connected Page 9 of 19 pnd 3 biswa of agricultural land in village Mund was sold as of 5.8,1996 for a sale consiceration of 4,75,000/- 38,00O/- was incurred towards sale duty and thus the price otthe land would be 5,13,0O0/- and calculated with reference thêeto, land price :per bigha. would come to .4,46,O00/- as of 5.8.1996. Learnéd counsel would urge that there is no reason not tq hold that fair • market value of agricultural lands in village .Mundka was 4,46,000/- per bigha as of 5.8J996. ' Takind 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, 213.2003 and' 17.6.2005; i.e. the dates when notifiatio.ns under, Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Actwere 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, Jt 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 Sincjh (Deceased) Thr LRs Vs LIQI 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 Z2,15, j 164/- for, category A land LA.APP.784/2005 & connected . •• Page 10 of 19 • • •• ;.. ' .• .•' • •• .''• - and U,7.3,500/- for catagory Bland; t2,35;50 for category A land and 1,90,.150/-' for category B land; .4,02,850I- for 'category A land and 324,850/. for category: B land; respectively. I may note here that in \farious 'land acquisition referenés, various parties have proved'a numbe of sale deeds executed from time to time, but during arguments today before' me, learned counsel for the land owners have only relied upon thesale deed Ex P-i . ' Per cbhtra, Sh.Sanjay,Poddar.learned.ounsl.forthe UOl would urge that the sale price as, per Ex.P-1 c:annot 'be' adopted as the yardstick for the reason, to be a representative s3mple 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 whetherw'hat percentage of stones are mixed in a bag of rice it would not be a safe method to 'pick only one g'rain, 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, dne would reach to the cohclusion that the bag is full of stones. At least . fistful should b.e 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 . ,t.he area is surveyed. Without a survey it . wQuld be difficult td issue even the.notification under Section 4 ' LA'.APP.784/2005&conhectd ; . ' ' Pae±1of19 '' ' ii 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-i 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 R4 referred to in the decision of the learned Reference Court pertaining to sale deds 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 SectiOn4pf the Land. Acquisition Act. 20. , ' An independent and alternative argument is also advanced byr 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 /aiS/nqh Vs. UO/ 21 The decision in /a' Sincjh's case (supra) concernts 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 U,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 as Petitions for Special Leave to Appeal filed before the Supreme Court by either side have been dismissed Learned Icounsel takes the argument forward by urging that by adopting the fain market value of land in village akkarwala as of 15 101993 at 1,32,000!- per bigha, the fair market value should be ascertained by increasing the price progressiyly b. 10%.. per. : annum to determine the market vlu.e of•••land in. viIIge • Bakkarwala as of 24.9.2003 '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 viIag'e M un dk a should be determined as of 25.2.1997,. 21.3.2003and 17.6.2005, by givin 5% increase 22 With respect to the sale deed Ex P-i, whereunder 1 bigha and 3 biswa . of agricultural land was sold in village Mundka as of 5.8.1996, it would vassurne 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 publiaion of .a notifiction 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 fbr 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.'acquiredi, In Delhi, the large scale acquisition policy • ' •• •' enjoins upon. the Govenment to allot, at. pre .detèrmind rates,a plot of developed residential land to the ones whose lands are LA APP 784/2005 & connected Page 13 of 19 acquired and thus, it is nQt uncommon, for persons to purchase small pares of lands in areas where acquisitiOflS are likely to take pIarf these transactiOn ar specuiatiVe a cannot be taken to ti a representative measurç of the fair maiket value of land as on the date of the sale Further, the principles of ratio and poportion as also the principles of averages :a the me that to be representative of the principles of sampling tell whole, a sample most bear at intelligible proportion to the whale. Thu, 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 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 P1 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 reference to the decision of this COurt:in ja! Sinq c a s e (supra) or p ratap5/ngh.'s'CaSe.(5Up). 24 I highlight that both decisions, penned by the Iivisiofl Bench of this Court have been upheld by the Supreme Court 25. .•. The decision in ja! S/nh ae (supra) dtrmined fair' market value of land in Villagë BakkarwaIa in su, f' H 1,32,000/- per bigha as of 15 10 193, and the jerusal thereof, Pagel4ofl9 LAAPP784/2005&conflect • . '.',. , ..,, . . ' . ' . would show that the Court assessed the fair market value with reference to sale deeds executed betvveen the year 1990 till the year 1996 either in Village Tikri Kálan or Village Mundka, apparently on the premise that being contiguous vllaçers, 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 agricultural lands in Tikri Kaln and another adjoining Village named Ghevra and pertaining to