$-113 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + LA.APP.874/2010 UNION OF INDIA Appellant Through: Mr.Sanjay Poddar, Advocate versus BRAHAMANAND ..... Respondent Through: Mr.Kunal Sharnia, Advocate for DDA , CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG ORDER % 08.07.2011 For orders, see LA.APP.No. 784/2005. PRADEEP NAN DRAJOG, J. JULY 08, 2011 mm 0 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 : ' ' 7_• IN THE HIGH COURTS OF DELHI AT NEW DELH 1 . t % Date6DeCI1O flthiuIy,,Q + LA.APP . 784J2OO ' JAMNA Appeflant ? Through Mr L B Ral, Advocate, M I S Dahiya, Advocate, Mr D S Lakra, Advocate, Mr K Sunil, Advocate, 01 1 Mr Anuj Bhandarl, Acvocate Mr Shada Farashat, Advocate m Versus NA a & ORS RespondentS t) Q 1. p Through Mr Sanjay Poddar, Standing 1 Counsel (LA), GNCT Delhi with Ms Dëepika, Mr Sachin Nawant and Mr SiddharthPafldaAdvocates Mr Ajay Verma, Ms Kanika AgnihOtfl1 Mr Kunal Sharma, Mr Sumer Sethi, Mr B B Sharma, Ms Shobna Takiar and Mr ArVn Birbal, Advocates for DDA 'H; .. ..... . •:. •. .. : .. •::. : AND .9 + LA APP 879/2pO5 LA APP 880-881/2005, LA APP9 121/2006, 143/2007 (Relating to Notification u/s 4 dated 252.1997 & Award NO211999,-2OOQ, Villae Mühdkà) . . . t t r . . . . . ... . . . . .. AND •.LA.APP. 583/2009, . LA.APP. 6.03/2009, • L:APP. 604i00.9.! :••.: •. LA APP 606/2009, LA APP 610/2009, 74/20 10, LA APP 78/2010, LA APP 784/2005 & connected Page 1 of 19 • • .. . . •. . • • •1. •• . r r.9 c 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, LA APP 239/2010. .LAAPP. 243/2010, LA.APP. 244/2010 1 0 LA.APP. 245/20101 LAAPP 247/2010 1 LAAPP 251/20,10, LAAPP 252/2010, LAAPP 266/2010, LAAPP 267/20O, LAAPP 273/20101 LAAPP 274010, LAIPP 275/2010, LAAPP 312/2010, LAAPP 324/0101 L.A.APP 320010, LAAPP 327/2010, LA APP 3292010 1 LA APP 330/2010, LA APP 331/2010, LA APP 332/2010, LA APP 333/2010 with CM APPL No 5524/2011, LAAPP 35/2010, LA.APP 367/2010, LAAPP 368/2010, LAAPP 369/2d1, LAAPP 371/2010 & CM APPL No 20099/2010, LAAPP 374/2010, LAAPP 375/2010, LAAPP 377/2010, LAAPP 379/2010, LAAPP 423/2010, LAAPP S 452/2010, 694/2010, LAAPP 461/2010 1 LAAPP LA APP 696/2010 & CM APPL No 472/2010, 6340/2011, LAAPP LA APP 697/2010 1 LAAPP 698/2010 & CM APPL 1734/2011, LAAPP 70/2010 & CM APPL 17215/2010, LAAPP 707/2010, LAAPP 708/2010, LA APP 709/2010, LA APP 710/2010 with CM APPL No 2568/2011, LA APF 713/2010 ,with CM APPL No 7473/2010, Ir LA APP 715/2010, LA APP 717/2010, LA APP 719/2010, LA APP 766/2010, LAAPP 7,96/2010, LAAPP 797/20101 LAAPP 798/2010, LAAPP 799/2010, LAAPP 818/20101 LAAPP 819/2010, LAAPP 829/2010, LAAPP 831/2010 & CM APPL 955/2011, LA APP 832/2010, LA APP 833/2010 & CM APPL 63.92/2011, . LA;Ag-8-- L P. '842/2010 LA:APP. 871/2010, LAAPP 874/201 , AAPP 875/2010, LAAPP 876/2010, LAAPP 877/2010, LAAPP 878/2010, LAAPP 879/2010, LAAPP 880/2010 1 LAAPP 881/2010 & CM APPL6505/2011, LAAPP 882/2010, LAAPP 883/2010, LAAPP -884/701b l LAAPP 886/2010, LAAPP 888/2010, LAAPP 889/2010 & CM APPL 2249/2011, LA APP 890/2010, LA APP 893/2010 & CM APPL 675012011, LAAI9P 894/2010 & CM No 23353/2010, LAAPP 89592010,, LAAPP 896/2011J, LAAPP 897/2010 & CM APPL728/2011, LAAIDP 903/201O, LAAPP LA APP 784/2005 & connected Page 2 of 19 907/2010, LAAPP 938/2010, LAAPP 939/2010, LAAPP 1034/2010 & CM APPL 3086/2pp, LA APP 1040/20!L0 & CM APPL 53/2011, LA APP 1041/2010, LA APP 1043/2010, LAAPP p 1045/2010, LAAFP 1046/2010, LAAPP 1048/2010, LAAPP 1049/010, LAAPP 1050/2010, LAAPP 1056/2010, LAAPP 1060/2010, LAAPP 1061/2010, LAAPP 1071/2010, LA APP 125/2011, LA APP 126/2011, LA APP 258/2011 (Relating to Notification u/s 4 idated 21 03 2003 & Award No 3/2005-06, Village-Mundka) AND + LAAPP 600/2009, LAAPP 605/2009,1 LAAPP 615/2009, LAAPP 310/2010, LAAPP 325/2010, LAAPP 376/20?10, LAAPP 383/2010, LAAPP 384/2010, LAAPP 385/2010, LAAPP 473/2010, LA APP 492/2010, LA APP 586/2010, LA APP 591/2010, LAAPP 63812010, LAAPP 690/2010, LAAPP 692/2010, LAAPP 711/2010, LAAPP 716/2010, LAAPP 763/2010, LAAPP 872/2010, LAAPP 873/2010, LAAPP 885l20I0, LA.APP; 887/2010, LA.APP. 891/2010 LAAPP, • 892/2010, LA APP 898/2010, LA APP 906/2010 & CM APPL No 4443/2010, LA APP 937/2010 & CM PPL 23299/2010, LA APP 1042/2010, LA APP 1047/20 10 (Relating to Notiftcation u/s 4 dated 21 03 2003 & Award No 1/2005-06, Village-Mundka) AND LAAPP 100312010, LAAPP 1017/2010, LAAPP 1019/2010, LAAPP 1022/2010, LAAPP 1023/2010, LAAPP 1044/2010, LA PP 1051/2010, LA APP 1053/2010, LA APP 1054/2010 & 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, LA APP 127/2011,LAAPP 128/2011,LAAPP 259/2011 LA.00.784/20051 & connected Page 3 of 19 • : .•, • • • - ( 1 4 - - _1 • .-. ;.-- -. 1 1 • •• •.- : •. ••- H • - •'.• (Relating to Notification u/s 4 4 dated 17,0B.20051 Award No 13/2006-07, Viilage-l1undka) 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,LAAPP 1031/2010k, LAAPP 1033/2010 & CM N96645/2011, LAAPP 1062/2010, 1063/2010 & CM No 6943/2011, LAAPP 1064/2010, LAAPP 1066/2010, LAAPP 1067/2010,LAAPP 11/2011,LAAPP 122/2011 (Relating to Notification u/s 4 dated 17,106.2005 & ward No 1)2006-07 Village-Bakkarwala) CORAI1 HON'BtE MR JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDR/JOG 1 Whether the Reporters of local papers m'ay be aIl9we to see the judgment? 2 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 aove captioned appeals and relatable civil miscellaneous applications which are by W4yt of cross objections, all of which have been listed hereinabove LAAPP784/2005&corinected Page4ofl9 2 Thepresent decision concerns issue of fixation of fir market value of land in the revenue estate of Village Bakkarwa1 and village Mundka 3 The dates on which fair market values of the land has to be determined may be graphically noted as under - S No Name of Village Date of notificaiôn under Section 4 ofhe LA Act 1 Bakkarwala 24 9 Yll 2 Bakkarwala 17 6 2005 3 Mundka 25 2 1997 4 Mundka 21 3 20 5 Mundka 17 6 2005w 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;. asper serial No.5 above. 5. 1 Abutting NH-lU, leading from the 4city of Delhi to the township of Rohtak in the State of Haryana,ae villages Mundka, Ghevra and Tikri Kalan Village Bakkarwala lies towards the other side of the Southern boundary of village Mundka T h e.-: difference between the topology of the two villages is, whereas the land of village Mundka abuts NH-lU, 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 A 7 Agricultural landr in villageMundka were acquired LA APP 784/2005 & connected Page 5 of 19 H 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 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 re')enue estate of village Bakkarwata 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 village were acquired ,pursuant to a notification dated 1 T, 6 2005 (the same notificatin under which lands in village Mundka were acquired) as per award No 1/2006-07 9 In a nut shell, they Land Acquisition Collector determined the fair market valLe of the acquired lands, under all th awards, with reference to the minimum price for agricultural land as notified by the Government of J\JCT Delhi 10 For clarity I may note that pertaining to the notification dated 25.2.199.7 under w 1hich agricultural lands in the revenue estate of village Mundka were acquired, the learned Land Acquisition Collector determined 'the.fairr market value with reference to the minimum price for agricultural land notified with effect from 1 4 1997 @ U0 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 •-• I H . . 4. . ., . .. .. .. ......... ...................................................... . :- . . .. . , .. - .. - I , • •' ,. .; . .., •H . •• • .•. .... . . , ...-. ._.L_•:__: the price for one year © 11 5% annuki This price was adopted for category A lands For in categQry B, the value was further discounted by 9O,00ô/J er cre Pertaiqing to the notifications dated 21 3 2003 ad 24 9 2003, the Land Acquisition Collector relied upot'i 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 estte ? village Bakkrwala a n dl - . ¼ village Mundka as of 17 6 2005, the Land Acquisition Collector 1 •...... deterrnined the same with reference s to the hotification fixing minimum value f agricultural lands in Delhi as of 1 4 2001 and gave no increase 11 Aggrieved by the detecminatron 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 cquisition Act 1894 a n d on the reference being made, vide vrious 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 enhancedthefairmarketvalue 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 not,ification as was adopted by. the Land Acquisition Collector under which the LA APP 784/2005 & connected Page 7 of 19 • •• •• . •: • • • • . • . • . • . . . . • • . •: annum determined the sum arriyed at as of 213.2003 as also 24 9 20O3 The twp sums`arrived at were addedand divided by two to arivç at the mean figure as of I. 3 2003, which I note comes to Z15,92,083 33 per acre (In some decisions I note the sum arrived at is I5,92,215/-) For the date 24 9 2003 the price determined was 20,41,O007- per acre 15 Pertaining to the notification dated i 17 6 2005 pursuant whereto agricultural lands were acquired in vil4age Bakkarwala and Mundka the learned Reference Court adopted the minimum price for agricultural lands notified by the Government of NCT Delhi with effect from 14.2001 and giving increase @10% per annum determined the value and with respect to the lands in village Mundka, oni account of locational advantage, being abutting NH-lU 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 Collector as also that of. the Reference Court, I delve into the arguments advanced before me dunng hearing today 17 With reference to the evidence led in LAC .Jo 384/2004 lamna Vs UQI & Ors, it was urged by Sh L B Rai, f the Land Acquisition Act Learriqd counsel would concede that the reasons given by the learned Reference Court are pot $ound, but would urge that the to contentions' advanced by hi should be considered by this Court as the reasons as to why m Ex P-i be not taken as the basis to determine the fair marke4 ialue of lands in village Mundka and Bakkarwala Thirdly, learned counsel would further urge that the four sale deeds x R-1 to R4 referred to in the decision of the learned leference 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 r,eference 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, argumenit is also advanced by learned counsel for the Union The sa,me rests itself on a decision of a Division Bench of this Court reported as (135) DLT 231 /aisingh Vs LIQI ' 2006 21 The decision in /aiSingh's case (supra) concerns itself with the determination of the fair market value of land in village Bakkarwala which were acquired pursuaçit to a ntification iated 15 10 1993 at Z1,32,000/- per bigha Learned counsel would urge that the said decision has attained finality inasmuch LA APP 784/2005 & connected 'Page 12 of 19 .5. 11 as Petition for Special Leave to ppeal filed before the Supreme Court by either side have been'dismissed Le&red ounsel take, theargument forward by urging that by , adopting the fii market value of land in village Bakkarwala as of 15 10 1993 at 1,32,O00I- per bigha, the fair market value should be ascertained by increasing the price progressively by 10% per andum to determine the market value of land in :vi1lag Bakkarwala as of 24 9 2003 as also 17 6 2005 Learned counsel would urge that in view of the locational advantae 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. )) \AIH-h rnrtti-th-.cal P deed Ex.P-1.. whereunder 1:•- 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 speculative and cannOt be measure of te fair market value of taken to be a representative 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 f the whole, a sample must bear at intelligible proportion to the whole Thus, not for the reaso ning 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 isan additional 1. 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 Munqlka and reflect a sale price much lower than te sa price recorded in x P-i In f, the sale price in the said 4 sale deeds averages much le4 than even the minimum price for agricultural land i n ,'Delhi oti ied by the Government 23 Thus, the fair market value of the lands wotild be required to be fixed either with reference to the decision of this Court injf5I/7gh'ScaSe45uPra) or Pratap Sinqh'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 k' 5,nghcaSe (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 LAAPP784/2005&connected Pagel4ofl9 4 k would show that the Court assessed the fair marketvalue with 1 reference to sIe deeds executed between the years 1990 till t h e year 1996 either in Village Tikri Kalan or Village Mundka, apparently on the premise that being contiguous villagers, sale price of agricultural land Jn t h e.-:.2 adjoining villages would be indicative of fair market value of land in Village BkkarwaIa 26 In Pratap Singh's case (supra), the Division Bench was concerned with agricultural Inds in ikri Kalan and another adjoining Village named Ghevra and pertaining to yarious notifications issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act determined the fair market value of agricultural lands in IilIage Tikri Kalan arGhevra as under - SNO Dat Village Price per Big ha 1 4% Of. & Tikri Kalan 2,15,160/- for Block 16 11995 A & 1,73,59OI7 for Block B land 2 11 06 1996 Tikri Kalan & 2,35,815/- for Block Ghevra A & 1,90,156/- for I Block B land 3 1712,2002 Tikr: Kalan 4,02,850/- for Block A Z3.,24,850/- for Block B land 27 Fopwing the judgment in Pratap Sin cih's case (supra) I have decidi th 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 bein Land LAAPP784/2005&connected Page 15of 19 lands, the fair market value assessed i 2,9,408 75 per bigha i e 11,97,162/- per acre and for Category B, lands, I assess the ir value at 2,01,117/- 'per bigha i e 9361 60 per eml<et 29 The next notification with which I am concered is dated 21 32003 pertaining to Village Mundka In Chirani Lal's cas (supra), with reference to the decision in Pratap 5inghs case (supra), for agricultural lands in Village Ghevra pertaining to a notification issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act on 6 2 2003, the fair, market value assessed was 4,03,4251- per bigha This was uniformly applied Since there is a time ap of just a little over 1 month, I am of the opinion that pertaining to e notification dated 21 3 2003, fair market value of land in rlIage Mundka should be 4,03,425I- i e 19,36,440I- per acre, which I hereby fix I propQse to deal with the notification dated 9 2003, after dealing with the notification dated 17 6 2005 ursuant whereto agricultural lands were acquired in Vil'age undka and Village Bakkarwala 31 As noted hereinabove, in Chirarni Lal's case (supra), pertaining to the notification dated 6 2 2p03, faifl marke value assessed by me was 4,03,425!- per bigha and thus, increasing 10% for s and 131 days, the figure comes to the same by 2 year 4,98,589I- per bigha, which comes to 23,93,227 20 per ce The same is held by me to be the fair market value of land in Bakkaala as of 17 6 2005 ldecre Village Mundka and Village rw H thesame LAAPP784/2005&connected Pagel7ofl9 1 4 4 I 4 4 4 8 4 t 23,93,227 20 per acre, as on 17 06 2005 For. the land situated in Villag,e akkarwaa the fair market value is fixed at 4,2,41/- per bigh i e 20,43,076 80 per acre, as on 24 09 2003 Appellants and cross-objectors who have succeeded would also be entitled to solatium and interest as per statute and as clarified in the 4cision reported as 93(2001) DLT 569 Sunder vs tb!, for the compensation, paid originally and as enhanced by the Reference Court and finally on the sum enhanced by the present judgment and decree The appellants and cross-objectors who succeed would also be entitled to proportionate costs viii) All pending applications stand disposed of in terms of the prayers made therein (PRADEEP NANDRAJOG) JUDGE JULY08, 2011 mm -1 A APP 784/2005 & connected Page 19 of 19