rA $-163 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + LA.APP.1046/2010 UNION OF INDIA Appellant Through: Mr.Sanjay Poddar, Advocate with Ms.Deepika, Advocate versus SURAJ SINGH & ANR. Respondents Through: Mr.Arun Birbal, 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 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 ) • V V VI V * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DEHI: •, • V V Date of . Deci5iQfl th jyy 201 V V ± LA APP. 78412Q05 Appellant JAMNA Through Mr L B Rat, Advocate, Mr I S Dahiya, Advocate, Mr D S Lakra, Advocate, Mr K Sunil, Advocate, Mr. Anuj Bhandarl, Advocate • Mr.Shadam Fa.raShat, .Advoate • V V V( Versus V • V j Respondents UOI & ORS • Through: V Mr.SaniaY p0ar,.5tand:in.g V VI V Counsel (LA), G'NCT Delhi with • Ms Deepika, Mr Sachin Nawafli and All Mr. Siddharth Panda Advocates • Mr.Ajay Verma, Ms.Kaflika V • Agnihotri; Mr.Kunal Sharma, V Mr.Sum.er Sethi, Mr.B.B.Shrm .a, • V V • V V Ms Shobhna Takiar and Mr Arun V V Birbal, Advocates for DDA. : V • V V • V • • V • AND + LAAPP 879/2005, LAAPP 880-881/2005, LAAPP 121/2006, 1A3/2007 (Relating to Notification u/s 4 dated 25.021997 Award No.2/999-?OOO' Village M.undka) • . $ AND Pt V APP. 583/2009, LA.APP.. 603/2009, LA.APR 604/2009, •• LAPP 606/2009, LA APP 610/2009, 74/2010, LA APP 78/2010, • • • • • V . • • Page 1 of 19 V • • LA.APP 784/2005 & connected • A V I. .LA.APP. 79/2010, LA.APP. 121/2010, LA.APP.,122/2010,LA.APP 125/2010, LA.APP. 164/2010,; LA.APP. 185/2010, LA.APP. 186/2010, LA. APP. 200/2010, LA.APP. 238/2010, LA.APP. 239/2010, LA.APP; 243/2010, LA.APP. 244/2010., LA.APP. 245/2010, LA APP 247/2010, LA APP 251/2010, LA APP • 252/20101 LA.APP. 266/2010, LA.APP. 267/2010, LA.APP. .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, LA.APP. 330/2010, 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, LAAPP. 371/2010 & CM: APPL. ' No.20099/2010, LA.APP. 374/2010, LA.APP. 375/2010, LAAPP • 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. 69,6/210 & çM:APPL. No. 6340/2011, LA.APP. 697/2010, LA.APP. 698/2010 & CM APPL. 1734/20111 LA.APP. 706/2010 & CM APPL.'17215/2010, LA.APP. :707/2010 1 LA.APP. • 708/2010, LA.APP. 70912010, 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.AP'P. 833/2010 & CM APPL. • • 6392/2011, LA.APP. 834/2010, LA.APP. 842/2010, LA.APP. •. • 871/2.010, LAAPP. 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 A•PPL.728/2011, LA.APP. 903/2010, LA.APP. • • •: • • . . LA.APP.784/2005 & connected . • . Page 2,of 19 • . . 907/2010, .LA.APP. 938/2010•, LA.APP. 93.9/2010, LA.APP. 1 4 • 1034/2010 & CM APPL. 3086/2011 LA.APP. 104012.010. & CM APPL. 5673/2011, LA. . 10, 1 PP. 1043/2010, LA.APP. 1045/20 1 .LA.APP. 1046/20 10 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 dared 21.03.2093 & Award No.3/2005-06, ViIlageMunda) ' AND ± LA.APP. 600/2009, LA.APP. 605/2009, LA.APP. 615/2009 LA.APP: 310/201.0, 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. 6'90/2010, 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.444.3/2010, LA.APP. 937/2010 & CM APPL. 23299/2010., LA.APP. 1042/2010, LA.APP. 1047/2010 Relain.g to Notification i./s 4 dated .21.03;003 & Award • No.1/2005-06, Village-Mundk.a) . . • . AND 4 LA.APP. 1003/2010 1 LA.APP. 1017/2010; LA.APP. 1019/2010, . LA.APP.1022/2010, LA.APP. 1023/2010, • LA.APP.' 1044/2010', LA.APP. 1051/20.10, 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.AP.P. 128/2011, LA.APP. 259/201.1 • .. . • LA.APP.784/2005 & connected • • • • : • Page 3 of 19 p (Relating to Notification u/s 4 dated 17 06 2005 & Award No.13/2006-07, Viilage-Mundka) AND + LA.APP. 40/2009 & Cross Objedions, LA.APP. 426/009, LAAPP. 428/2009, 442/20091 LA.APP. 611/2009, LA.APP. • .616/2009, LA.APP. 278/2010 (Relating to :Notificatibn u/s 4 dated 24.09.2003& Award No./2004-05, Vllage-Bakkarwala) AND + LA.APP. 1029/2010 & CM N.o3948/2011, LA.APP. • 1030/2010, LA.APP. 1031/2010, LA.APP. 1033/2010 & CM No.6645/2011, LA.APF. 1062/2010, 1063/2010 & CM • No.6943/2011, .LAAPP. 1064/2010. LA.APP. 1066/2010, LA.APP. 1067/2010, LA.APP. 11/2011, LA.APP. 122/2011 S (Relating to Notification u/s 4 dated 17.06.2005 & Awrd • . No.1/2006-07, Village-Bakkarwla) . . . .. . CORAM: .. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NAN DRAJOG Whetherthe Rporters.of local papers maybeallowed to see the judgment? • • • • To be referred to Reporter or not? • • 4 3 Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest 2 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 • LA.APP.784/2005 &conected • . . • . Page4of 19 •.. • 7 The present dedsion concerns issue, of fixation of fa;fr market value of land in the revenue estate of yillágeBakkarw and village Mundka. 3 The dates on which fair market value of the land has to be determined may be graphically noted asunder:- S.No. Name of Village Date of notIfication under • Section 4 of theLAAct • 1: Bakkarwala 24.9.2003 . . • 2. Bakkarwala . 17.6.2005 . Mundka . 25.2.1997 . . Mundka . 21.3.2003 . 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 wereacquired in th'e 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. Bakkarwalã lies towards the .• • other side of the Southerri boundary of village Mundka. The differene between the topology f the two villages is; whereas the land of village Mundka abut NH-10, that of village Bakkarwala does not so abut; being on the other side of the 4 . 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 Kaan. • 7. Agricultural lands in village Mundka were acquired LA.APP.784/2005 & connected • • • Page 5 of 19 • .• • • • . • • • • , ., rs•uaht to notification dated 25.2.199.7 issUed u,nde,r SectiQn 4 of the Land Acquisition Act as per award 1.to 2/1999/2000 Agricultural lands in the revenue estate pf viiik Mundka were further acquired pursuant to a potification ted 21.12.003 . issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisitionctas per award No.3/2005-06 as also award No.1/2005-06. Further iandsir 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 . Agricultural lands in the revenue estate . of village . Bakk.a.rwala 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 reve'nue,estate of the same village were acquired pursuantto a notification.dated 17.6.2005 (the same notification under which lands Jn viUage, Mundka were acquired):as per award No./2006-07 . . 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 GQvernment of N;c7ID.elhtL . For clarity. I . may note hat pertainin to the notification dated' 25.2.1997 under which agricultural lands in the revenue estate of village Mundka were acq,Lired, the learned Land Acquisitin Collector determined the fair market value with , reference to the minimum 'price for agricultural '.la'hd notified ' with effect from 1.4.19 ,97 @ Z10 lacs per acre and since the date of Section 4 notification'as anterior in point of time, discounted LA.APP.784/2005 & connected Page 6 of.19 11 the price for one year, @ 11 5% p e r annum This price was adopted for category A lands For lands in category B, the value was further discounted by. 90,000I- per ac'rel 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 ehhancemnt with reference to the tact 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 revnue'estatè' of village Bakkarwala and village Mundka as of 17.6.2005 ; the, Land Acquisition Co!lectbr 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 Refe,rence Court took 4 corrective action, as per the view of the Reference Court, and enhanced the fair market value. • , 12'. in a: nut 'shell, Oertaining to' the notification dated 25.2.199.7 vide which agricultural lands in village Mundka were acquired, the Reference Court adopted the'sarne notification'as' • was adopted by the Land Acquisition Collector under which the LA.'APP.784/2005 & connected ' ' '' . • ' Pge'7 of 19 • ' • .... -.--- . Government Of 'NCT Delhi had fixed the minimum value for ; agricultural lands in 'Delhi i.e. 1.4.1997, but as against the Lnd Acquisition Collector depressing the price © 11 5% for full one year, adopting the percentage 11 5, decreased the value by only 3.4 days inasmuch as the date with reference whereth GOvernment had notified the minimum, value was 1.4.1997 and the notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquiition Act was dated 25.2.1997. This was the value' fixed for category A lands nd jor, category B lands, with reference to the values for category A land depressed the same by 90,000l- per acre. 13. Thus, for category A lands th., Refethnce Court deterhiined the fair market value @ 9,89,288i- per acre and for •, category B land the same was determined © 8.,99,28/- per. acre. . . . . . 14.. Pertaining to the notificatiOns dated 21.3.2003 and 24 9 2003 whereunder agricu'tural lands in village Mundka and village Bakkarwala respectively Were acquired, the Reference Court took 'note of the fact that after the .Govrnment had notified the minimum rates for agricultural lands in Delhi as of 1.4.2001 the next revision was asof 30.8.2005. Using the said dates and the minimum price notified by the Government of. NCT d 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 24.9.2.003. . Thereafter the. Reference Court toOk the value • nOtified as of 30.8.2005 and depressing the samet by 10% per LA.APP784/2005&corinected . . . Pageof19 B annum determined the sum arrived at as of 21.3.200 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 nde 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. Pertaining to the notification dated 17.6.2005 pursuant whereto agricultural lands were acquired in village Bakkarwala and Mundka the learned Referenc Court adopted the minimum price for agricultural lands notified by the Government of NCT Delhi with effect from 1.4.200,1 and giving increase @10% per annum determined: the valUe and with' '1 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 insurn of 21,37,017 75 per acre and for village Bakkarwala the price • determined was 20,35,255/- per acre. 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 heating today. With reference to the evience. led in LAC . 4 No.384/2004. lamna Vs. WOl & Org., 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 tlearned counsel who appeared for the bther 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 $ale consideration of4,75,000/ 38,000/- was incurred towards sale duty and thus the ic of thelland would be 5,I3,000! and calculatedwith reference .th.ereto 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 4,46,000/- per bigha as of 5.8.19.96. Taking the argumert 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 ectipn 4 of the Land Acquisition Act were issued pursuant whereto agricultural lands were acquired in village Mundk, by increasing the price prpgressively, if not by 12% per annum at testby 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 contiguotis villages, and in fact village Tikri Kalan i,s further towards the township of Rohtak,some increase be made in the value of th 1e land in village Mundka and Bakkarwala with reference to the 4 judgment and decree. dated 19.12.2008 deciding a batch of Land Acuisition Appeals; lead matter being LA Appeal No.193/2006 Ptatap 5/ngh DeCeased Thr. LRs Vs, hO! as per which fir market. value of land, per bigha, was detrmined 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 Page 10 of 19 LA.APP.784/2005 & connected . 11 and 1,73,500I- for category B land, 2,35,850 for, category A land and i,90,150/- for category B land, 4,02,850I- for category, A land. and 3,24,850I- for category B land, respectively. . . . . . . . . . 18 I 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 ownershave only relied upon the sale deed Ex P-i 19 Per contra, Sh Sanjay Poddar learned counsel for the UOl would urge that the sale price as per Ex P-i cannot be adopted as the yardstick for the reason, to be.a representative I .•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 what percentage of stories are mixed 'in 'a bag of rice it would not be a safe method to pick only one grain, for if it happenstobethe drain 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 pièce of stone, one would 'reach to 'the conclUsion that the bag is'fullof stones. At least fistful should be lifted and then checked as a representative sample, is the.example"give.n. The second reason on which learned" coUnsel would ' attack the sale deed as not beirig representative of the price is the reason that people' do come to know about pending acquisition inasmuch as before :cquisitions are made, land in the area is sur'eyed. ' With'out a survey it would be difficult to issue even thenotification under Section 4 LA.APP.784/2005 & connected' ' Page 11 of 19 of the Land Acquisition Act, Learned counsel would concede that the reasons given by the learned Rference Court are nbt . . . . sound, but wo,uld urge that the two .contentions advàncëd by : . . him should be consideredby 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 ExR-1 to R-4' referred., to in the decision of. the 'lerned . . 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 fix.a:tion should be with reference to the, minimum price notified • by the .Goverhment 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 rgurient 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. 1)01. . 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 pursuant to a notification dated 15 10 1993 at U,32,000/- per bigha Learned counsel would urge that the said' decision has attained'finality inasm.uth LA.ppp:784/2005 & connected . . Page 12 of 19 . • as Petitions for Special Leave to Appeal filed beforethe : SUPre.me Court by either side have been dismissed Learned counsel • takes the arument forward by urging that by adopting the fair market value of land in village Bakkarwalà as of 15.10.19.93 at 1,32,000/ per bigh, the faft 'market value should be ascerthined by,increasing the price progressively by10% per annum to determine the market value of land Jn . village Bakkarwala as of 24.92003.s also 17.6.2005. Learned counsel would urge that in view of the locational advantage of village Mundka, fair'harket value of land in village Mundka should be. deterhiined as of 25.2.1997,213.2003 and 17.6.2005,by giving 5% incease. . 2. . 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 assurne 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 k a matter of common knoledge that preceding the publication of a notification undef Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, survey's are carried out with the object of determining 'as to what lands, compried ) in which khasra : numbers and fields are required to be liptified for the proposed j . acquisition and when this happens peopl 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 predetermined rates, a plot of developed residential land to the ones whose lands are Page 13 of 19 LA.APP,784/2005 & connected . . ... • . acquired and thus, it is not uncommon, for persons to purchase small parcels of lands in areas where acquisitions are likely to thké 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 sate. Further, the 'rinciples f 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 ber 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 coul.d be determined.There is an additioral -- reason not to rely upon the said sale deed. The sale deeds ExR- 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 agricu ural land in Delhi notified 'by • the Government. 23. Thus, the fair market \ialue of the lands would be required to be fixed either with reference to the decision of this Court in laiSin h'sc.aSe .(supra) 0 pratap5iflgh'5ca5e (supra). 24.. I highlight that.both decisiOns, pen'd bi the Division n ' Bench of this Court have been upheld by the Supreme Cburt. • 25 The decision in J 5ing/case (supra) determined fair market value of land in Village Bakkarwala in sum of 1,32,000I- per bighã as of 15.10 1993, and the perusal thereof • LAAPP.7.84I2005 & connected ' • Page 4 of 19 • • 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 lard in the 2 adjoining villages would be indicative of fair market value of land in Village Bakkarwala 26 In Prataf Singh's case (supra), the Division Bench was concerned with agricultural lands in Tikri Kalan and another adjoining Village 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 - SNO: Date Village Price per Bigha 1 24 07 1995 & Tikri Kalan 2,15,160/- for Block 16 11 1995 A & 1,73,500/- for Block B land 2 11 06 1996 Tikri Kalan & 2,35,815/- for Block Ghevra A & 1,90,156/- for Block B land 3.. 17 12 2002 Tikri Kalan 4,02,850/-