39. IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + LA.APP. 509/2011 RAMANAND Appellant Through: Mr. L.B. Rai, Advocate versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS Respondents Through: Mr. Sanjay Poddar, Advocate for respondent No.1/UOI. Mr. Mr. Arun Birbal, Advocate for respondnt No.2/DDA. CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI ORDER % 03.08.2011 CM 14298/20 11 (for condonation of delay in filing the appeal) This application is filed by the appellant praying inter a/ia for condonation of delay of 540 days in filing the accompanying appeal.: At the outset, counsel for the appellant states that in case the delay of 540 days in preferring the accompanying appeal is condoned, the appellant shall not claim interest on the enhanced amount for t he period of delay as also the costs of the appeal. Counsel for the respondent No. 1/Union of India and respondent No. 2/DDA state that they have no objection to the aforesaid suggestion made by the counsel for the appellant. LA.APP. 50912011 Page 1 of 4 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 Accordingly, the present application is allowed with the condition that the appellant shall not be entitled to claim interest on the enhanced amount for the period of delay of 540 days in filing the appeal as also the costs of the appeal. The application is disposed of. LA.APP. 509/2011 By way of the present appeal, the appellant has assailed the judgment 05.02.2010 passed by the Reference Court in LiAC No.28/08/07 arising out of Award No.3/DC(W)/2005-06 pertaining to village Mundka, pursuant to the notification dated 21.03.2003 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 (in short 'the Act'). Counsel for the appellant submits that the present case is squarely covered by the judgment of a co-ordinate Bench (Pradeep Nandrajog, 3.) passed in a batch of matters, lead matter being LA.APP.No.784/2005 entitled 'Jamna vs. UOI & Ors.' decided as recently as on 08.07.2011. Learned counsel particularly draws the attention of this Court to the operative para 33 of the aforesaid judgment, relevant portions of which are reproduced herein below:- "33. Accordingly, the appeals filed by the Union of India require to be dismissed and I hereby dismiss the same. The appeals filed by the land owners and the cross-objections filed by the land owners stands decreed as under:- LA.APP.509/2011 Page2of4 xxx For the land situated in village Mundka the fair market value is fixed at 4;03,425/- per bigha, i.e. !19,36,440/- per acre, as on 21.03.2003. xxx xxx xxx vi) Appellants and cross-objectors who have succeeded would also be entitled to solatium and interest as per statute and as clarified in the decision reported as 93(2001) DLT 569 Sunder vs. 1)01, for the compensation, paid originally and as enhanced by the I Reference Court and finally on the sum enhanced by the present judgment and decree.." It is submitted by the 'counsel for the appellant that tl'ie appellant is also entitled to the relief as granted to other simila5ly placed appellants in the aforesaid batch of matters, to which counsel for the respondent/U0I has no objection. Following the aforesaid decision dated 08.07.2011 in' the case bf Jamna (supra), the present appeal, is also disposed of on the sarre lines, while granting the same relief to the appellant as granted to the appellants in the LA.APP.784/2005. However, it is clarified that the appellant shall not be entitled to claim interest on the enhanced compensation for the period of delay of 540 days in filing the appeal as LA.APP.. 50912011 Page3of4 9 also the costs of the appeal, in terms of the orders passed today in CM 14298/2011 preferred by the appellant for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. HIMA KOHLI,J AUGUST 03, 2011 rkb LA.APP. 50912011 Page 4 of 4 14 . . . . . . : • . 4 I . . . . . . . . . C :N THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI .. ., .. . . . . , . . . . .. . . . . . . . . Q Da teof Deci5IO th 201.1 0/ . . . . . • • : 9 . ' • .: . •1 . . ± LiP 7412005. : Appellant JAMNA Through Mr L B Ral, Advc cate, Mr I 5 Dahiya, Advocate, Mr D S Lakra, Advocate, Mr K Sunil, Advocate Mr Anuj Advocate Bhandafl, Mr Shadam Farashat, Advocate , • Versus i ' :.; Respondents UOl & ORS Through Mr Sanjay Poddar, Standirg N Counsel (LA), GCT Delhi W. , Ms Deepika, Mr Sachin Nawani and Mr. Siddharth Panda AdMoaateS Mr Ajay Vet ma, Ms Kak' Agnihotri, Mr Kunal 5har9ja Mr Sumer Sethi, Mr B B Sarma, Ms Shobhna Takiar and 1 Mr Arun Ym Birbal, Advocates for DDA • AND L - LA.APV LA.APP. 880. 881/2005, LA APP .879/2005, 121/2006, 143/2007 (Relating to Notif cation u/s 4 dated 25 02 1997 & Award No 2/1999-2000, Village Mundka) AND + LA APP 583/2009, LA APP 603/2009, LA APP 604/2009, LA APP 606/2009, LA APP 610/2009 74/2010, LA APP 78/2010, fr tp LA APP 784/2005 & connected Page 1 of 19 3' • : • •.. •• .• • • • . • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 3 • • •.I • • .; ....-. • • •, • . • • •. ... • • • • • • 4 } - - - ' • ... • .• • 1 I 1 LAAPP 79J2010, LAAPP 121/2010, LAAPP 122/2010, LAAPP 12512010, LAAPP 164/2010, LAAPP 185/2010, LAAPP 186/2010, LA APP 200/2010, LAAPP 238/2010, LAAPP 239/2010 LAAPP 243/2010, LAAP 24/2010, LAAP 245/2010 [tAAPP 247/2010, LAAPP 25112010, LAAPP 252/2010, LAAPP 266/2010, LAAPP 267/2010, LAA1jP 273/2010, LAAPP 274/2010 1 LAAPP 275/2010, LAAFP 312/2010, LL\APP 324/2010, L.A. APP 326/2010, LAAF'P 327/2010, LAAPP 329/2010, LAAPP 330F12010, LAAP 331/2010, LA APP 332/2010, LA APP 333/2011 lith CM APL No 5524/2011, LAA1P 335/2010, LAAP 010, LAAI1P 368/2010, LÀ APP 369/2010, LA APP 371/2pI0! & CM APPL No 20099/2010, LAAPP 374/2010, LAAPP 37/ 010, LAAPP 377/2010, LAAPP 379/2010, LAAPP 423/2010, LAAP'P 452/2010, LA.APP: 461/2010,.. LA.APP. .472/2010, LA.AP:P. .694/2010; LA.APP..696/201O&CM APPL, No. 6340/2011, LA.APP. 697/2010, L/-APP 698/2010 & CM APPL 1734/2011, LAAPP 706/2010 & Clvi APPL 17215/2010, LA APP 707/2010, LA APP 708/2010 LÀ APP 709/2010, LA APP 10/2010 with CM APPL No 2568/2011, LA APP 713/2010 with CM APPL No 7473/2010, LAAPP 715/2010, LA APP 717/2010, LA APP 719/2010, LA APP 766/2010, LAAPP 796/2010, LAAPP 797½010, LAAPP. 798/2010, LA APP 799/2010, LA APP 8182010, LAAP 819/2010, LA..APP 29/2010, LA.APR 831/2010 & CM APP. 955/2011 LAAPP 832/2010, LAAPP 833/2010 & CM APPd 6392/2011, LAAPP 834/2010, LAAPP 842/2010, LAAP 87112010 LAAPP 874/2010, LAAPP 875/2010, LAAPP1 876/2010, LAAPP 877/2010, LAAPP 878/2010 LAAPP 879/2010, LAAPP 880/2010 LAAPP 881/2010 & CM APPL6505/2011, LAAPP 882/2010 LAAPP 883/2010 LAAPP 141 884/2010 . pp .886/2010, LA.APP. 888/2010, LA.APPI 889/2010 & CM APPL2249/2011, LAAPP 890/2010, LAAPPI 893/2010 & CM APPL 6750/011, LA.APP.' 894/2010 & CM . No23353/2010, LAAPP 895/2010, LAAPI 896/2010, LAAPP 897/2010 &CM APPL728/2011, LAAPP 903/2010, LAAPP LA APP 784/2005 &conected Page 2 of 19 -- ---------- annum determined the sum arrived at as of 213,20Q3 as also 24 9 2003 The two sums arrived at were added and dI\fIde by two to rriveat th mea1 figure as of 2l..3.2003, which I note comes to 15,92,083 33 per acre (In some deciions I note the sum arrived at is 15,92,215/-) For the dat 24 9 2003 the price:dtermiped was20,4l,0Q0I:per acre. 15 Pertaining to the notificition dtd 17 6 2005 pursuant whereto agricultural lands were ac'qiid in vilIag Bakkarwala and Mundka the learned Reference dourt adopteb the minimum price for agricultural lands notified by th e l Goernment of NCT Delhi with effect from 1 4 2001 and givin increase @10% per annum determined the value and with respect to the lands in village Mundka, ion account of locational ij 'advantage, being abutting NH-10 gave 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 as 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 1 into the arguhients advanced before me during hearing today 17 With reference to t h e . evidence led in LAC No 384/2004 /amna Vs UO/ & Ors, it was urged by Sh L B Rat learned counsel for the appellant in LA App No 784/2005, which argument was adopted by other learned counsel who appeaied 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 H and 1,73,500/ for category, B land, Z2,35,850 for category A land and Z 1,9O,15O!- for category B land, 4,02,850/ for ategory , A land. and 3;24,850! for category B land, respectively I 18 may note here that in various land acqui,sitio references, vaious parties have proved a number of sale deed executed from time to time, but during arguments today befor me, learned cunseI f o r' the land owners have only relied upor the sale deed Ex P-i 19 Percontra, Sh Sanjay Poddar learned counsel for th UOI would urge that the sale price as per Ex P-i cannot b adopted as the yardstick for the reason, to be a representative sample of the whole, the sample must bear some acequat proportion tbthe Whole. Fo;r exa.mple learned counsel would urge that if, it has to be determined whet ier what percentage of stones are mixed in a bag of rice it would not be a afe method to pick only one grain, for if it happens to bete drain of rice o n e would lead to the conclusion that the bag is I full of i and if that oe grain happens to be a piece of stone, one would reach to the conclusion that the bag is full of stones At least a' fistful should be lifted and then checked a s , .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 befre acquisitions are made, land in the area is surveyed Without a survey, it vould be difficult to issue even the notification ukder Section 4 LA APP 784/2005 & connected Page 11 of 19 :H:. • •; •. ••• I, would show that ithe Court assessed the fair market value with reference to sale deeds executed betv éen the years 1990 till the year 1996 either in Village Tikri Kaln or Village Mundka, apparently on the premise that being contiguous villagers, sale price of agricultural land in the 2 adjoining villages \NOUld be indicative of fair market value of land in Village Bakkarwala 26 In Pratap 5/nc7h'5 cage (supra), the Division Bench was concerned with agricultural lands in Tikri Kalan and another adjoining Village narned Chevra and pertaining to various notifications issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act determined the fair market value of agricultural lads in VilIag i ikn Kalan and Ghevra as under - • • SNO. • Date • Village Pri'cel pqr Bigha 124 07 1 995 & Tikri Kalan 2,15,16O/- for Block 16 11 1995 A. & !1,73,500/- for Block B land 2 11 06 196 Tikri Kalan & Z2,35,,815/- for Block Ghevra A & 1,9O,156/- fo BlockB land )—AC' AcqulsitiOfl Appbal No 489/2009, CI7franJI La! vsLQ0f India & Anr. on 2 6 2011 I have determined the fair market value of the lands in Village Ghevia at 4,Q3,425/- per bigha as of .6.2.200 .3 On the i s u e of comparabilitY of land in village BakarWata with 1 village Mundka, Ghevra and Tikri Kalan, it is no dbt true that villaoe BakkarWala does not abut 'NH-0 as do the he other villages, but it has to be highlighted tat it is mot proximate to the urban areas of Delhi vis-visGheVra and Tikri Kalan and to that extent, qua said 2 viltges, has an advantage Since excnesS can never be achieed in the matters of assessing fair compensation1 it is the I road probabilities and similarities which matter Thus, I hold all villages to be quivaIent1 ulssUa some lad special featurs can be shon. 28 Since the decision in Fc±JLSii2iLf 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 it would be just, far and proper to determine the fair market value of lands with which I am concerned in relation to the fair market value of lands determined in Pratap Siq5 case (supra) As per the decision infratap SIng!2 case (supra) for the date 24 7 1995, for Category A lands fair compensation assessed was 2,15,160/- per bigha and 1,73,500/- per bigha for Category 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 days ie, days In PratapingCaSe (supra) was determined to be 10% pei annum (flat) Thus, prtaning to Category LA.APP..784/205 & connected . Page 16 of 19 H 23,93,227 20 per acre, as on 17 06 2005 For the land situated in Village Bakkarwala the fair market value is fixed at 4,25,641/- per bigha 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 solatiurn and iterest as per statJe and as clarified in the dectsion reported as ::DLT Sunder for the 93(20.01) 569 vs. compensation, paid originally, and asi janced by the Reference Couit and finally on the surr enhanced by the, present judgment and decree The' appellants and cross-objectors who succeed would also be entitled to proportionate costs Al pending applications stand disposed of in terms of the. ayers rnade threin. . • • .; • •• (DEEP NANDkAJOG) JUDGE JULY 08, 2011 mm LA APP 784/2005 & connected Page 19 of 19 I • • ;