$-78 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + LA.APP.638/2010 HARISH CHAND GARG Appellant Through: Mr.L.B. Rai, Advocate versus UNION OF INDIA& ORS. Respondents Through: Mr.Sanjay Poddar, Advocate for R-1 CORA: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NAN DRAJOG ORDER % 08.07.2011 For orders, see LA.APP.No. 784/2005. PRADEEP NAN DRAJOG, J. JULY08, 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 . . . .. . .. , . . . . . . I . • • ' . . .. - . .. J :. • : :.... . ..., LAAPR 79/2O1O, LAAPP 121/2010, LAAPP 122/2010, LAAPP 125/20O, LAAPP 164/2010, LAAPP 185/2010, LAAPP 186/240, LA APP 200/2010, LA APP 238/2010, LA APP 239/20'lO LAAPP 243/2010, LAAPP 244/2010, LAAPP 245/2010, LAAPP 247/2010, LAAPP 251/2010, LAAPP 252/2010, LAPP 266/2010, LAAPP 267/2010, LAAPP 273/2010, LAAPP 274/2010, LAAPP 275/2010, LAAPP 312/2010, LAAPP 324/2010, LA APP 326/2010, LAAPP, 327/2010 LAAPP 329/2010, LAAPP 330/2010, LAAPP' 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, LAAPP 369/2010, LAAPP 371/2010 & CM APPL No20099/2010, LAAPP 374/2010, LAAPP 375/2010, LAAPP 377/2010, LAAPP 379/2010, LAAPP 423/2010, LAAPP 452/2010, LAAPP 461/2010, LAAPP 472/2010, 1AAPP 694/2010, LA APP 696/2010 & CM APPL No 6340/2011 LA APP 697/2010, LAAPP 698/2010 & CM APPL 1734/2011LAAPP . 706/2010 & CM APPL 17215/2010 LAAPP 707/2010,'LAAPP 7081/2010, LA APP 709/2010, LA APP 710/2010 with CM APPL No 256/2011, LA APP 713/2010 with CM APPL No 7473/2010, LAAPP715/2010, LAAPP 717/2010, LAAPP 719/20101 LAAPP 766/2010, LAAPP 796/2010, LAAPP 797/2010, LAAPP 798/2010, LAAPP 799/2010, LA APP 818/2010, LA APP 819/2010, LA APP 829/2010, LA APP 831/2010 & CM APPL 955/2011, IAAPP 832/2010, LAAPP 833/2010 & CM APPL 6392/2Q11, LAAPP 834/2010, LA,APP 842/2010, LAAPP 871/2010, LA.AP 74/20 10, LA.APP. 875/2010, LA.APP. • . 876/2010, tLA.APP. :877/201.0, LAAPP. 78/2.010, LA.APP. 879/2010, LAAPP.. 880/2010, LA.APP. .: .881/2010. .& C = APPL 6505j2011, LA.APP 882/2010, LA APP 883/2010, LA APP 884/2010, LAAPP 886/2010, LAAPP 888/2010, LAAPP 1 889/2010 & CM A.PPL2249/2011, LAAPP 890/2010, LAAPP i . 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 APPL728/2011, LAAPP 903/2010, LAAPP LA APP 784/2005 & connected I Page 2 of 19 7. • . ... . '.• . . .• .• . i ... • . -,. . . . •.• A. -• 907/2010 LAAPP 938/2010, LAAPP 939/2010, LAAPP 1034/2010 & CM1 APPL 3086/2011 1 LA APP 1040/2010 & CM APPL 5673/2011, LAAPP 1041/2010, LAAPP 1043/2010, LAAPP 1045/2010, LAAPP 1046/2010, LAAPP 1048/20101 LAAPP 1049/2010, LAAPP 1050/2010, LAAPP 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 dated 21 03 2003 & Award No 3/2005-06, Viflage-Mundka) AND + LAAPP 600/2009, LAAPP 605/200, 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, LAP2.492,L2 . A.APP. 586/2'O1O, LA.APP. 591/2010, LAAPP 638/2010 LAAPP ,690/2010, LAAPP 692/20101 LAAPP 711/2010, LAAPP 716/2010, LAAPP 763/20101 LA APP 872/2010, LA APP 873/2010, LA APP 885/2010, LAAPP 887/2010, LAAPP 891/20101 LAAPP 892/2010, LA APP 898/2010, LA APP 906/010 & CM APPL No4443/2010, LAAPP 937/2010 & CM 4PPL 23299/2010, LA APP 1042/2010, LA APP 1047/2010 (Relating to Notification u/s 4 dated 21 03 2003 & Award No 1/2005-06, Vi!lage-Muhdka) . • • .• • • • • S .... • ....., • AND . . / LA APP 1003/2010, LA APP 1017/2010, LA APP 1019/2010, LA APP 1022/2010, LA APP 1023/2010, LA APP 1044/2010, 'LAAPP 1051/2010, LAAPP 1053/2010, LAAPP 1054/20101& W CM APPL No 5656/2011, LA APP 1055/2010, LA APP 1057/20101 LAAPP 1058/2010, LAAPP 1059/2010, LAAPP 1068/2010, LAAPP 1069/20101 LAAPP 124/2011, LAAPP 127/2011, LA APP 128/2011, LA APP 259/2011 LAAPP784/2005&connected Page3ofl9 VI If H H 47 (Relating to Notification u/s 4 dated 1706 2005 & Award No 13/2006-07, Viilage-Mundka) AND It + LA Af. 40/2009' & Cross Objections, LA APP 426/2009 1 LAAPP 828/2009, 442/2009, LAAPP 611/2009, LAAPP 616/2009,LAAPP 278/2010 T. (Relating 'to Notification u/s 4 dated 2409 2003 & Award No 3/2004-05, Village-Bakkarwala) AND I + LAAPP 1029/2010 & CM No 5948/2011, LAIPP 1030/2Q10, LAAPP 1031/2010, LAAPP 1033/2010 & CM No6645/2011, LAAPP 1062/2010, 1063/2010 & CM No6943/2011, LAAPP 1064/2010, LAAPP 1066/2010, LAAPP, 1067/2010, LA APP 11/2011, LA APP 122/2011 (Relating to Notification uls 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 papers may be allowed toseethejudgment' 2 To be referred to Reporter or not' 3 Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, I (Oral) 1 I. m deciding the above captioned appeals and relatable civil miscellaneous applications which are by way of cross objections, all of which have been listeè hereinabove LA APP 784/2005 & connected Page 4 of 19 4 t • •. • • • • .. • •. •• • r 2 The present decision concerns issue of fixation of fair market value of land in the revenue estate of Village B. ,6kkarw aa 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 1 Bakkarwala 24 9 2003 Bakkarwala 17 6 2005 Mundka 25.2.1997. 4 Mundka 21 3 2003 5 '1undka 17 6 2005 4 It may be highlighted that the notification at serial No 2 hereinabove, pertaining to village Bakkarwala, is the same S Village pursuant whereto lands were acquired in the revenue estate of. Mundka, as per serial No 5 above 5 Abutting NH-b, 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 s of village Mundkaabuts NH-b, that of village Bakkarwala does not so abut, being on the other side of the Southern boundary of rev-enue 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 7 Agricultural lands in village Mundka were acquired LA APP 784/2005 & connected Page 5 of 19 y 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 Furthr lands in t h e.. 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 revenue estate of village Bakkarwala were acquired pursuant to a notification dated 124,.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 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 nofe that pertaining to the notification dated 25 2 1997 under which agricultural lands in the revenue 1estate of village Mundka were acquired, the learned Lar16 Acquisition Collector determined the fair market value with $ reference to the minimum price for agricultural land notified with effect from 1 4 1997 @ 10 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 /0 he price for one year @ 11 5% per annUm This price was adopted for category A lands For lands in category B, the value was further discounted by 90,000/- per adre Pertaining to the notifications dated 21 3 2003 and 24 9 2003, the Land Acquisition Collector relied upon the noification 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 estate of village Bakkarwala and village Mundka as of 1.7.6.2005, the Land Acquisition Collector . determined the same with reference to the notification fixing minimum value of agricultural lands in Delhi as of 14 2001 and gave no increase 11 Aggrieved by?the determinationof 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 t h e . above captioned appeals, the Reference Court took corrective action, as per the view of the Reference Court, and enhancedthefairmarketvajue I 4 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 siame notification as as adopted by the Land Acquisition Collectbr under which the LAAPP784/2005&connected Page7oflg I, Government of NCT Delhi had fixed the minrmum value for agricultural lands in Delhi i e 1 4 1997, but as against the nd Acquisition Collector depressing the price @ 11 5% for full one year, adopting the percentage 11 5, decreased the ')alue by only. 34 days inasmuch as the date with reference whereto Goverrwnent 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 fixedfor category A lands and for catgory B lands, with reference to t h e values for category A land depressed the same by 90,000I- 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/- per 0 acre 14 Pertaining to the notifications dated 21 3 2003 and 24 9 2003 whereunder agricultural lands in village Mundka and village Bakkarwala respectively were acquired, the Reference Court took note of the fact that after the Government had notified the minimum rates for agricultural lands in Delhi as of, 1 4 2001 the next revision was as of 30 8 005 Using the said dates and the minimum price notified by the Government of NCT 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 6/o per annum determined the enhanced price as of 21 3 2003 as also 24 9 2003 Thereafter the Reference Court took the value notified as of 30 8 2005 and depressing the same by 10% per LA APP 784/2005 & connected I Page 8 of 19 aflnum determined th sum arrived at as of 21 3 2003 as also 24 9 2003 The two sums arrived at were added 1nd 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 20,41,000I- per acre 15 Pertining 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 df 21,37,017 75 per acre and for village Bakkarwala the price determined was 20,35,255I- 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 140 into the arguments advanced before me during hearin today 17 With reference to the evdnce led in LAC No 384/2004 /amna Vs UQI & Ors, it was iurged by, Sh L B Rai, learned counsel for the appellant in LA App N'o 784/2005, which argumeçt ,was adopted by other learned counsel who appeared fQr the other appellants, that the learned Trial Judge was not justified in ignoring the sale deed Ex P-i whereunder 1 bigha LAAPP784/2005&connected I Page9ofl9 r /3 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 5,13,000/- and calculated with reference thereto, land price per bigha would come to 4,46,000I- as of5 8 1996 Learned counsel would urge that there is no reason not to hold that fair marketyalue of agricultural lands in village Mundka was 4,46,00OI- per bigha as of. 5.8.1906. Taking 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, 21 3 2003 and 17.6.2005, I e the dates when notifications under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act were issued pursuart • whereto agricultural lands were acquired in village Mundka, by. ... .... ............ increasing the price progressively, if not b) 12% per annum at least by 10% per annum It is urged that on the dame 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 contiguods yillages, 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 UQI as per which fair market value of land, per bigha, was determined in the revenue estate of village Tikri Kaln as of 16 11 1995, 11 6 1996 and 17 12 2002 at 2,15,164/- for category A land Page 10 of LA APP 784/2005 & connected 19 ..... ..................... ., and 1,73,500/- for category B land, Z2,35,80 for category A land and 1 90,150/- for category B land, 4,02,850/- fo'r category A. land and 3,24,850/- for category B land, respectively 18 I may note here that in various land acquisition referenckes various parties have proved a number of sate deeds executed from time to time, but during arguments today before me, learned counsel for the land owners have only relied upon, the sale deed Ex P-i 19 Per contra, Sh Sanjay Poddar learred counsel for the UOI would urge that the sale price as per Ex P-i cannot 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 Lirge that if, it has to be determined whether what percentage of stones are mixed in a bag of rice it would not be a safe method to pick only one grain, 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, one would peach to the conclusion that the bag is full of stones At least a fistful should be lifted and then checked s a representative sample, is the example given The second reason on whicF' learned counsel would attack the sale dieed as not being 0 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 nptification under Section 4 LA APP 784/2005 & connected Page 11 of 19 • . . • . ...... • . A • . .• . . . • •.• . . •.• • . • •. .•• .,- . . .• . Li If the Land Acquisitron Act Learned counsel would concede 4 that the reasons given by the learned Referene Court are not sound, but would urge that the two contentions advanced by him should be considered by this Court as1the 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 tht the ,,four sale deeds Ex R-1 to R-4 referred to in the decision of the learned Reference Court pertaining to sale deeds dated 6 1 1995, 305 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 Jhe 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 w1nch 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 IaiStncih Vs (JO! 21 The decision in /a! Sin gh's case (supra) concerns itself with the determination of the fair market value of land in village Bakkarwala which were acquired pursuant 'to a rotification dated 15.10 1993 at 1,32,000/- per bigha Learned counsel would urge that the said decision has attaind finality inasmuch LAAPP 784/2005 & connected Page 12 of 19 • ....... IC as Petitions for Special Leave to ppeat filed before the Supreme Court by either side have been dismissed Learned counsel p takes the argument forward by urging that by adopting the fair market value of land in village Bakkarwala as of 15 10 1993 at 1,32,000I- per bigha, the fair market, value should be ascertained by increasing the price progressively by 10% pr lu annum to determire the market vae , of land in village Bakkarwala as of, 24.9. 2003 as also 17 6 2005 Learned counsel would urge that in view of the locational advantage of village Nundka, , fairl market value of land in village Mundka should be determined as of 25.2.1 .99.7, 21.3.209 .3 and 17 f 2005, by giving 5% increase 22 With respect to the sal deed Ex P-i, whereunder 1 bigha and 3 biswa of agricultural land was sold in Village Mundka as of 581996, it would assume importance that te sale is about 7 months prior to the date of the notification issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, which was isued on 25.2.1997.It is a matter of common knowledge that preceding the publication of a notification under Section 4 of te Land Accuisition Act, survey's are carried out with the object of determining as to what lands, comprised in which khasra numbers and fields are required t be flotified for the proposed acquisition and when this happen people 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 pre determined rates, a plot of developed residential land to the ones whose lnds are LA APP 784/2005 & connected Page 13 of 19 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 taken to be a representative measure of the fair market value of Further, the princip land as on the date of the sale les of ratio and proportion as also the principles of averages and thef principles of sampling tell me that to be represeflative of the whole, a sample must bear at intelligible proportion to the whole Thus, not for the reasoning advanced by the learne Reference Court, but for the twin reasoning hitherto-fore noted, I hold that Ex P 1 cnnot be good evi d ence wherefrom market - value of the land could be determined There is an additioflI reason not to rely upon the said sale deed The sale deeds Ex R- • 1 to Ex R-4, dated 61 1995, 3051997, 46 197 and 89 1997 are also pertaining to Village Mundka and reflct a sale price much lower than the sale price recorded in Ex P-i In fact, the e in the said 4 sale deeds avergeS much sale pric 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 nj 5ingL case (supra) or p tapSngh'5CaSe (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 i 5ingh's caSe (supra) determined m f fair market value of land in Village akkarwala in su o 1,32,O00/- per big ha as of 15 10 1993, and the perusal thereof LA APP 784/2005 & connected Page 14 of 19 / • •• .• • • .- - •. --.• •.• - - -----i -..., . .,. •: :•. • '. ., •.:•. • • •' .. . : • •. • .. . . ...... .. . . . lands, the fair. market value assessed is 2,49,408 75 p e r, bigha V. i e 11,97,162/- per acre and for Category B lands, I assess the fair market value at 2,01,117/- per bigha i e 9,65,361 60 per acre 29 The next notification with which I am concernecLL dated 21 32003 pertaining to Village Mundka In jniLat cas (supra), with reference to the decision in Pratap Singh's case (supra), for agricultural lands in Village Ghevra pertaining to 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 gap of just a little over 1 month, I am of the opinion that pertaining to lhe notification datect, 21 30O3, fair rnarlcr value land " • Village Mundka should be *,O3,425I- i e U36,440I- per acre, which I hereby fix 30 I propose to ideal with the notificatOfl dated 24.9.2003, after dealing with the notificatifl dated ]7 6 2005 pursuant whereto agricultural lands were acquired in Viltage Mundka and Village Bakkarwala 31 As noted hereinbove, in Chiranh' aJcase (supra), pertaining