$-39 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + LA.APP.252/2010 RAJ SINGH 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 for DDA .4. • CORAM: I 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 'I 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 , ,,. : • , •. . . .,.,. .. A. * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELFH AT NEW DELFH . . . ,.. . .. . . . . . ,. ' . . . . •: '• • .. . . . .. ' : • • .• • . •: :: • • . • o •• . , ; . '• + : LPAPP. . 784/2005 .. . . JAMNA Appellant Through Mr L B Rai, Advocate, M S Dahiya, Advocate, MID S Lakra, Advocate, MKSunhI,Adv0cate, Mr Anuj Bhandafl, Advocate Mr.Shadarn Farashat,AdYocate'.. - Versus UOI & ondents ORS Resp Through Mr Sanjay Poddar, Standing . Counsel (LA), GNCT Delhi with Ms Deepika, Mr Sachin Nawafli and Mr Siddharth Panda Advoca Mr Ajay Verma, Ms Kanika Agnihotri, Mr Kunal Stiarma 9 Mr Sumer Sethi, Mr B B Sharrfla, Ms Shobhna Ta4iar and Mr rin Birbal, Advocates for DDA AN D + LAAPP 879/2005, LAAPP 880-881/2005, LAAPP 121/2006k 143/2007 (Relating to Notification u/s 4 dated 25 02 1997 & Award No 2/1999-2000, Village Mundka) AN D + LA.APP1 583/2009, LAAPP 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 . .. .. .. U • • . :.. . T 1 J ' LA APP 79/2010, LA APP 121/2010 LA APP 122/2010, LA APP 125/2010, 1 A APP 164/2010, LA APP 185/2010, LA APP 186/2010, LA. APP. 20012010, LA.APP. 238/2010, LA.APP 239/2010 LAAPP 243/2010, LAAPP 244/2010, j.A21 245/20l0 PP 247/2010, LA APP 251/2010, 71 -iAAPP 266/2010, LAAPP 267/2010, LAAPP 2737210, 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. 329/201O,; LA.APP. 330/2010, LAAPP. 331/2010, LA.APP. 332/2010, LA.APP. 33/2010 with CMAPPL. Na., 5524/2011, LAAPP 335/2010, LAAPP 367/2010, LAAPP 368/2010, LA APP 369/2010, 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, LAAPP 694/2010, LA.APP. 696/2Qi0& CM APPL. No. .6340/2011, LAAPP. 697/2010, LA.APP. 98/2010 & CM APPL 734/2011, LAAPP. • 706/2010 & CMt 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, LAAPP 713/2010 with CM APPL No 7473/2010, LAAPP 715/2010, LAAPP 717/2010, LAAPP 719/2010, LAAPP 766/2010, LAAPR 796/2010, LAAPP 797/2010, LAAPP 798/2010, .LA.AP. 799/2010, LA.APP. 818/2010,, LA.APP. 819/2010, LA.APP. 829/2010, LA.APP.. 831/010 & CM APPL. 955/2011, LA.APP. 832/2010, LA.APP.•.833/2010 & CM APPL. 6392/2011, LAAPP 834/2010, LAAPP 842/2010, LAAPP, 871/2010, LAAPP 874/2010, LAAPP 875/2010, LAAPP 876/2010, LAAPP 877/2010, LAAPP 878/20T0, LAAPP 879/2010, . LA.APP. . 880/2010, LAAPP. .881/2010 & CM : APPL.6505j2011, LA.APP. 882/2010, LA.APP. 883/2010, LA.APP. ... 884/2010, LAAPP 886/201Q, LAAPP 888/2010, LAAPP 889/2010 & CM APPL2249/2011, LAAPP 890/2010, LAAPP 893/2010 & CM APPL 6750/2011, LA APP 894/2010 & CM No2335312010, LAAPP 895/2010, LAAPP 896/2010, LAAPP F 897/2010 & CM APPL728/2011, LAAPP 903/2010, LAAPP LA APP 784/2005 & connected Page2 of 19 the price for o n e year @ 11 5% per annum This price was adopted for category A lands For larfds in category B, the value was further discounted by 90,000/- per acre Pertairung 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 rtJ •))1 fl wr 1-- _ -. cillu cveii •pt1Ldi1ilFIy CC) L11 flOtinCatiQfl aatea 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 Jani 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 land's in village Mundka were acquired, the Reference Court adopted the same notification as was adopted by the Land Acquisition Collector under which the tA APP 784/2005 & connected Page 7 of 19 • --: ;.•,.• .: • •. • : • - Governmnt of NCT Delhi had fixed the minimum value for agricultural lands in Delhi e 1 4 1997, but as against the Land Acquisition Collector depressing ihe price @ 11 5% for full one year, adopting the percentage 11 5, decreased tiie 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 depressed the same by 90,000I- p'r acre 13 Thus, for category A lancs the Reference Court determllned the fair market value @ 9,89,288/- peracre and for category B land the same was determined @ Z 8,99,288I- per acre 14 Pertaining to the notifications dlated 21:3 2003 and 24..9.2003 whereunder agricultural lancs in village Mundka and village Bakkarwala respectively were acquired, the Reference C6urt took note of the fact that after the Govenment: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 a n h u deterMined t h e" sum arrived at as of 21 3 2003 as also 24 9 203 The two sums arrived t were added and dix'ided by two to arrive at the mean figure a of 2.1.3.2003, 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 village 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 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;35,255i per acre. H 16 In the aforesaid backdrop Of the factual scenario in which I have penned profiled the treasoning 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 evidence JeO in LAC No 384/2004 /amna Vs 110/ & Ors, it was urged by, Sh L. B. Rai, learned counsel for the appellant in UA 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-i whereunder 1 bigha LA.APP.784/2005:& connected Page 9 of 19; H. f the Lani Acquisition Act Learned counsel would concede 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 P-i be not taken as the basis to determik 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 eference Court pertaining to sale deeds dated 6 1 1995, O 5 1997, 4 6 1997 and 8 9 1997 relied upon by UOl would iiow the actual market value of the land and thus learned counsel would urge that the said four sle deeds should be . onsidered,, 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 whrch 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 Ia! Sincjh Vs 1101 21 The decision inJSIngh's case (supra) concerns itself withthe determination of the fair market value of land in village p- ------------- would show that the Court assessed the fair market value with reference to sale deeds executed between the years T990 till the year 1996 either in Village Tikri Kalan or Village Mundka, apparently on the premise that being contiguous Ha . 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 5lngh'5 case (supra), the Division Bench was concerned with agricultural ands in Tikri Kalan and another adjoining Village named Ghevr and pertaining to various • notifications isued• undr Sectio.r) 4 of the Land Acquisi.tidn A'cf determined the fair market value of agriulturaI lands in Village Tikri Kalan and Ghevra as under - cquisitIofl Appeal No 489I009, Aaron 262011 Ihave determined the fair market ue of the lands in Village Ghevra at 4,03,45!- per bigha as of 6 2 2003 On the issue of comparabilitY of land in village BakkarWala with village Mundka, Ghevra and Tikri Kalan, it is no doubt true that whereas village BakkarWala does not abut NH-b, as do the other villages1 but it has to be highlighted that it is more proximate to the urban areas of Delhi vis-a-VLS Ghevra and Tikri Kalan and to that extent, qua said 2 villageS, ha an. advantage. , Since exactr\eSS can never be achieved in the matters of assessing fair compensation, it is the broad probabilities ançi jrnilariti which matter. Thus, I hold al.l 4 villages to b • land' special features can e0uivalent1 urtess qua some be shown 28 Since the decision in Pratap, 5ipqhS case (supra) deals with notifications more proximate in point of time to the notifications with which I am concerned, I am of the opinion that tt would be er to determine the fair just, fair and prop market value of lands with which I am concerned in relation to the fair ;mrket value Of landS determined in' /hh'5 case (supra). As per the decision in Patap 5ig/'5 case (supra for , the date 24 7 1995, for Category A lands fair compensation assessed was 2,15,160/- per bigha and 1,73,500I per igha for Category B land The first notification with which I am concerned Is 25 2 1997 whereunder lands in Village Mundka were acquired The time span sweeps 1 year and 216 81daYS In PrtaP 5inghs case (supra) the annua(!flaease was determined to be 10% pei annum (flat) Thus, pertaining to CategorY A LA APP 784/2005 & connected Page 16 of 19 S