$-83 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + LA.APP.697/2010 UOl Appellant Through: Ms.Deepika, Advocate versus SUSHILA & ORS. Respondents Through: None . CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEPNANDRAJOG ORDER % 08.07.2011 CM No.12411/2010 There is a delay in filing the appeal. The delay is condoned. Application is allowed. LA.APP.No. 697/2010 For orders, see LA.APP.No. 784/2005. 1r Ei1 PRADEEP NAN DRAJOG, J. JULY 08, 2011 mm IA 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 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELI -H , .. . . . . . . - :• • . ' . . . . .: • :. • . .- , . _ i :_. . o • . , . .. ' pat ofDeci5/OP. 8 JuIl2: I + . ... , LA-APP.784/2005 . . : • . • 1 . AMNA : •• ' S . . . Appellant :.• Through Mr L. B. Rat, Advocate, Mr 1 S Dahiya, Advocate, Mr D S Lakra, Advocate, MrKSuflILAdVocate, Mr Anuj Bhandarl, Advocate Mr Shadam Farashat, Advocate : • . • . : •:...;'••: . ... . ' . H; ' .. : : • •:. , L... i Versus . . . . . UOI & ORS Respondents Through Mr , Sanjay Poddar, Standing Counsel (LA), GNCT Delhi with Ms Deepika, Mr Sachin Nawani and l?anda Advocates Mr Siddharth I Mr Ajay Verm, Ms Kanka Agnihotfl, Mr Kunal Sharma, Mr Sumer Sethi, Mr B B Sharma, Ms Shobhna Takiar and Mr Arun Birbal, Advocates for DDA . :.. . . . . ..• . AND LAAPP 879/2005, LAAPP 8808811/2005,, LAAPP L 121/2006, 43/2007 (Relating to Notification u/s 4 dated 25 02 1997 & Award No 2/1999-2000, Village Mundka) I 1• •.,., . . ..; .... AND :. 9' + LA APP 583/2009, LA APP 603/2009, LA APP 604I2009 LA APP 606/2009, LA APP 610/2009, 74/20 10, LA APP 78!2010 LA APP 784/2005 & connected Page 1 of 19 1P! .14 •, . ' . - ' , . fl ; . - . . . . : , LAAPP 79/2010, LAAPP 121/2010, tAAPP 122/2010, LAAJP 125/2010, A APP 164/2010, LA A. 185/2010, LA APP 186J2010, EA APP 00/2010, LAAPP 238/20100 LAAPP ' 23912010 LAAPP 243/2010, LAAPP 244/2010, LAAPP 245/2010 LAAPP 24/2010, LAAPP 251/2010, LAAPF 252/2010, LAAPP 266/2010, LAAPP 267/2010, LAAPP 273/2010, LAAPP 274/20a0, LAAPP 275/2010, LAAPP 312/2010, LAAPP 324/2010, I.A.APPi 326/2010, LAAPP 327/2010, LAAPP 329/2010, LAAPP 330/20101 LAAPP 331/2010, LA APP 332/20101 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, LA APP 371/2010 & CM APPL No 20099/2010, LA APP 374/2010, LA APP 375/2010, LA APP 377/2010, LAAPP 379/2010, LAAPP 423/2010, LAAPP 452/2010, LAAPP 46112010, LAAPP 472/2010, 694 2 10, LA P. 696/2010 & CM APPL No 6340/2011, LA I q LA APP 697/2010 AAPP 698/2010 & CM APPL d734/2011, LAAPP 70 010 & CM APPL 17215/2010, LA AP 707/2010, LA APP 708/2010 LA APP 709/2010, LA APP 710/2010 with CM APPL . No 2568/2011, ., . .,. .,. .. .. . (. •.....' LA APP 713/2010 with CM APPL No 7473/201p, LA APP 715/2010, LA APP 717/2010, LA APP 719/2010, LA APP 766/2010, LAAPP 796/2010, LAAPP 797/2010, LAAPP 798/2010, LAAPP 799/2010, LAAPP 818/2010, LAAPP 819/2010, LAAPP 82912010, LAAPP 831/2010 & CM APPL 955/2011, LA APP 832/2010, LA APP 833/2010 ,& CM APPL ! 6392/2011, LAAPP 834/2010, LAAPP 842/2010, LAAP 871/2010, LAAPP 874/2010, LAAP 875/2010, LAAPP 876/2010, LAAPP 877/2010, LAAPP 878/2010 LAAP 79/20.I.0, LA.APP. 8.80/2010, LAAPP. 881/2010 & CM LAAPP • 34,/201b, PL65O5/2011, LAAPP 882/2010, LAAPP 883/2010, LAAPP 88612010, LAAPP 888/2010, LAAP! 88/2010 & CM APPL2249/2011, LA APP 890/2010, LA APP 893/2010 & CM APPL 6750/20],1, LA APP 894/2010 & CM No 23353/2010, LA APP 895/2010, LA APP' 896/2010, LA APP 897/201 & CM APPL 728/2011, LA APP 903/2010, LA AP 1P LA APP 784/2005 & connected ;Page 2 o 19 H ± _ L : 907/2010, LAAPP 938/20101 LAAP 93/2610, LAAPP 1034/2010 & CM APPL 3086/2011, LA APP 1040/2010 & CM APPL 5673/2011, LAAPP 1041/20101 LAAPP 1043120101 LAAPP 1045/2010 LAAPP 1046/2010, LAAPP 1048/2010, LAAPP 1049/2010, LAAPP 1050/2010, LAAPP 106/20101 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, Village-Mundka) AND + LAAPP 600/2009, LAAPP 605/2009, LAAPP 615/2009, LAAPP 310/2010, LAAPP 325/2010, LAAPP 376/2010, LAAPF 383/2010, LAAPP. . 34/2010, LAAPP. .385/2010., LA.AP. 473/2010, LA APP 49212010, LA APP 586/2010, LA App . 591/2010, LAAPP 638/2010, LAAPP 690/2010, LAAPP 692/2010, LAAPP 711/2010, LAAPP 716/2010, LAAPF 763/2010, LAAPP 872/2010, LAAPP 873/20'lO, LAAPFI 885/2010, LAAPP 887/2010, LAAPP 891/2010, LAAPP 892/2010, LA APP 898/2010, LA APP 906/2010 & CM APPLI No 4443/2010, LAAPP 937/2010 & CM APPL 2399/20],0, LA APP 1042/2010, LA APP 104712010 (R&ating to Notification u/s 4 dated 21 03 2003 & Arard No 1/2005-06, Village-Mundka) AND LAAPP 1003/2010, LAAPP 1017/2010, LAAPP 1019/2010, LA APP 1022/2010, LA APP 1023/2010, LA APP 1044/201d, LAAPP 1051/2010, LAAPP 1053/2010, LAAPP 1054/2010 CM APPL No 5656/2011, LA APP 1055/2010, LAAPP 1 1057/2010, LAAPP 1058/2010, LAAPP 1059/2010, LAAPP 1068/2010, LAAPP 1069/2010, LAAPP 124/2011, LAAPP!, 127/2011, LA APP 128/2011, LA APP 259/2011 / . . LA APP 784/2005 & connected Page 3 of 19 $ • . .. . . • . •. •••' . .. . •. . . .. . . . 1:14' (Re)ating to Notification u/s 4 dated 17 06 200 & Award No 13/2006-07, Vii!age-Mundka) AND + LA APP 40/2009 & Cross Objections, LA APP 426/2009, LA APP 428/2009, 442/20091 LA APP 611/2009, LA APP 616/2009, LA APP 278/010 (Relating to Notification u/s 4 dated 24 09 2003 & Award No 3/2004-05, Village-Bakkarwala) AND + LAAPP 1029/2010 & CM No5948/2011, LAAPP 1030/2010, 1AAPP 101/2010, LAAPP 1033/2010 & CM . No6645/2011, LAAPP 1062/2010,, 106/2010 & c!i 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 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 to see the judgment? 2 To be referred to Reporter or not 7 3 Whether the judgment should be reported in the bgest 7 • PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, j (Oral) 1 I am deciding the above captioned appeals and relatable civil miscellaneous applications which are by way cross objections, all of which have ben listed hereinabove LAAPP784/2005&connected Page4ofl9 • ; H: • .., , .:.:: / 2 The present decision concerns issue of fixation of arketv.a1ue f lpd ;h rv enue tpt ç Yil Bak1atvv1 çil viIlage Mua ' AT The dtes on wh4ffl fair mark.fthe Iahj Pas e detmind mabe gr&picalIy noteud - S No Name of Vit'lage Date of nStifIcato under Section 4f the LAAct 1 Bakkarwa!a 24 9 2003 2 Bakkarwala 17 6 2005 3,. Mundka 25.2.1997 4 Mundka 213.2003 5 Mundka 17 6 2005 4.. It may be highlighted that the notification at sdrial No 2 hereinabove, pertaining to village Bakkarwala, is the same pursuant whereto lands were acquired in th revenue estate of Village 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)he other side of the Southern boundary of village Mundka The difference between the topology of the two villages is, whereas the land of village MJndka abuts NH-lU, that of vi1Iaje BakkarwaIa does not so abut, being on the other side of the Southern boundary of revenue estate of village Mundka As we proceed from the city of Delhi to the township Of Rohtak, village Mundka is crossed first, followed by village & Ghevra and hen village Tikri Kalan 7 Agricultural lands in village Mundka were acquired LAAPP784/2005&conflected Pagesofl9 ......................................... L . .. pursuant to, a notification dated 25 2 1997 issued under Section 4 of the Laid Acquisition Act as per, award No 2119991200F Agricultural lands in the reveue estate of village Mundka were further acquired pursuant to a notification dated 21 3 2003 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acauisition Act as per award No 3/2005-06 as also award No 1/2005-06 FLirther lands in the revenue estate of the same village were acquked pursuant to1a 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 datd 24 9 2003 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act s per Award No 3/2004-05 Further lands in the revenueestate of the same village were acquired pursuant to a notification dated 17 6 2005 (the same notification under which lands in vilIae Mundka were acquired) as per award No 1/2006-07 9 In a nut shell, the Land Acquisition Collector ietermined the fair market value of the acquired lauids, under all the awards, with reference to the minimum price for agricultual land as notified by the Governent of NCT Oelhi. 10 For clarity I may note that pertaining to tI'e notification dated 25 2 1997 under which agricultural lands n the revenue estate of village Mundka were acquired, the learned S , Land Acquisition Collector determined the fair mparket value with referenc4e to thel minimum price for agricultural Jand notified with effect from 1 4 1997 @ T10 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 / I . .:.. .. A .. '. .T . ... . .. . . . '••.:i 0 the price for one year @ 11 5% per annum This price was, adopted for , category A lands F'or lancs in categor,i B, the valUe was further, discounted by N0,000/- per acre 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 200Pand gave nb 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 b determined in the revenue estate of village5Bakkarwala an villag4 Mundka as of 17 6 2005, the Land Acquisition Collector determined the same with refer,ence to the notification fixin iininium value of agricultural lards in Delhi aof 1 42001 an ik I 151f gave no increase L1 Aggrieved by the determinationof the ffr market valuel of the lands by. the Land Acquisition Collector, the land owners sought a reference under Section 18 of ihe Land Acquiition Act 1894 and on the reference being made, vid various judgments and decrees, which are under challenge ir the above captioned appeals, the Reference Court took corrective action, as per the view of the Reference Court, and S enhancedt'hefairmarketvalue 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 notification as was adopted by the Land Acquisition Collector under which te LA APP 784/2005 & connected Page 7 of 19 : , t ' I Government of NCT Delhi had fixed the minimum value for agricultural lands in Delhi i e 1 4 1997, but as against the Land Acquisition Collector depressing the prce @ 11 5' 6/o for full one year, adopting the percentage 11 5, iecreased the value by only 34 days inasmuCh a the date with referencç wherto 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 te values for category A land depressed the same by 90,000I- per. acre 13 Thus, for category A lands the Reference Cout determined the fair market value @ !9,89,288/- per acre and for category B land the same was determined @ 8,99,288/- pr acre 14 Pertaining to the notifications dated 21 3 2003 and 24 9 2003 whereunder agricultural lands in village Mundka anä village Bakkarwala respectively were acquired, the Reference Court took note of the fact that after the Government had notified the minimurrt rates for agricultural laids in Delhi as of. 1 4 2001 the next revision was as of 30 8 2005 Using the si9 dates and the minimum price notified by the Government of NCT Delhi, the Reference Court adopted the principle of mear average What the Reference Court did was to adopt the valu as of. 142001 and increasing the same byilo% per annum1 determined the enhanced price as of 21F3 2003 as also' 14 24 9 2003 Thereafter the Reference Court took the value notified as of 30.,812005 and depressing the same by 10% per LA APP 784/2005 & connected Page 8 of 19 I . ....... . . . . . ,. . .. . •1 . i I annum determined the sum arrived at as of 213.2 003 as Iso 4.920 03 The two suyns arrived at were added and djvided by two to ayrive at the rnean figure as of 21 3 2003, which I note comes to U5,92,083 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 viII.ge 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 givin increase @10% per annum determined the value and witt'i ' respect to the lands in village Mundka, on account of Iocationl advantage, being abutting NH-lU gave 5% more and determined the fair, market value as of 17 & 2005 in sum of U1,37,017 75 per acre and for village Bakkarwala the pric determined was 20,35,255/4 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 deIv into the arguments advanced before me during hearing today 17 With reference to the evidence led in LAC No 384/2004 /amna Vs 110/ & Ors, it was urged by Sh LB Ra,, • learned counsel for the appellant in LA App No 784/2005, whIc] argument was adopted by other. learned counsel who appered for the other.app.ellants, that the. learned Trial judge wa'shb justified in ignoring the sale deed Ex P-i whereunder 1 bigha LA APP 784/2005 & connected Page 9 of 19 • • • • . • • • •. .• • • •• : • .' . . .. . . . . •,- . . ... . ... and calculated withrefencethrEto;Iaø prICt per bigha would come to 4,46,000I- as of 5.8 1996 Learnedl counsel would urge that there is no reason not to hold that fain market value iof agricultural lands in village Muridka was 1 1 t4,46,000/- per , bigha as of 5 8 1996 Taking the argument 1 forward, it is urged that with reference to the said price, fair market value needs to be determined as of 25 2 1993,j 21 3 2003 and 17 6 2005, i e the dates when notifications under. Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act were issued pursuant' whereto agricultural lands were acquired in village Mundka, byl increasing the price progressively, if not by 12% per annum atj i least by 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 coptiguous villages, and in fact village Tikri Kalan is further towards the township of Rohtak, some increase be made in the value of the iih rfrnc M th •fl' and U,73,500/- for category B land, 2,35,850 for category A land and 1,90,150/- for category B land, T4,02,850/- Or category A land and 3,24,850/- for category B land,1 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 owners have 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 • sample of the whole, the sample must bar some adeqi,iate proportion to the whole For example, learneç counsel wpuld urge that if it has to be determined whether wht percehtagd of stones are 1 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 reach to the conclusion that the bag is full of stones At least a fistful should be lifted and then checked as a representative sample, is the example given The second rëasdn on which learned counsel would attack the sale deed as not being representative of the price is the reason that pepple do come to know about pending acquisition inasmuch as before acquisitions are made, land in the area is surveyed Withouta survey, it would be difficult to issue even the notification under Section 4 LA APP 784/2005 & connected Page 11 of 19 • •. •. . . . . ... •. ... .: . •.••.... H . . •: • .y I H f the Land Acquisition Act Learned counsel would concede that the reasons given by the learned Reference i Court are not soun 4d, but would urge that the two contentions advanced by him should be considered by this Court as the reasons as to why Ex P-i be not taken as the basis to determine the fair market value of lands ir village Mundka and Bakkarwala Thirdly, learned counsel would further urge that the four sale deeds Ex R-i to R-4 referred to in the decision of the learned 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 5how the actual market value of the land and thus learned counsel would urge that the said four sale deds 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 which is nearest to the point of time when the respective notifications were issuei 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 4. a decision of a Division Bench of this Court reported as 2006 (135) DLT 231 Ia! Stngh Vs UQI 21 The decision in /ai Sincjh'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 a'ted 15 10 1993 at 1,32,000/- per bigha Learned counsel vould urge that the said decision has attained finality inasmuch LA APP 784/2005 & connected Page 12 of 19 . . H ............. ...... . .. .. . ...... i. :. r..................................... ..,. ,. ,. . . .. . . . .,,,. . ... .. . ,. .. ,... . . . . . . . ; ; .! • •!• • • : H acquired and thus, t is not uncommon, for persons to purchase small parcels of lands in areas where acquisitiOnS are likely to take rilace, these transactions are speculative and cannot be tken to be a representative measure of the fair market value of 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 representativ of the whole, a sample must bear t intelligible proportion to the Thu, not for the reasoning advanced by the learned whole 9 Reference Court, but for the twin reasoning hithertofore noted, U hold that Ex P-i cannot be good evidence wherefrom market value of the land could be determined There is an additional reason not to rely upon the said sale deed The sale deeds Ex R- 1 to Ex R-4 1 dated 61 1995, 3051997, 4,6 1997 and 891997, are also pertaining to Village Mundka and reflect a sale pric 'Ex much lower than the sale price recorded in P-i In fact, the sale price in the said 4 sale deeds averages 'much less than the minimum price for agricultural land in Delhi notiied by even th Government 23 Thus, the fair market value of the lands would be required to be fixed ether with reference to the decision of tht Court inLh'5case (supra) or Pratap Singh's case (supra) j • 24 I highlight that both decisions, penned y the DivtsiOr Bench of this Court have been upheld by the Supreme Court 25 The decision in J 5inghcase (supra) determined if fair market value of land in Village Bakkarwala in sum 1,32,000/- per bigha as of 15 10 1993, and the perusal thereo 1f Page 14 of 19 LA APP 784/2005 & connected I• . ... . . i. . . . . . . . ... . - - - - : , AcqthSItIOfl Appea' No 4392OO9, chLr7i' La 2 6 2011 I have determined the fai 1market value of the Apj on 03 lands in Village Ghevra at 4,03,425I- per bgha as of 6.220, On the issue of comparabilitY of land in village BakkarWla with village Mundka, Ghevra and Tikri Kalan, it is no dou,bt true that1 wheeas viflage BakkarWala does not abut NH-10, as do thi other villages, but it ha5 to be highlighted that it is more proximate to the urban areas of Delhi vis-a-VIS Ghevra and Tikri Kalan and to that extent, qua said 2 villages, has an advantage Since exactness can never be achieved in the matters o assessing fair compensation1 it is the broad probabilities and, similarities which matter Thus, I hold all 4 vil11ages to be equivalent1 unless qua some land special featurS can be showfl 28 Since the decision in Pratap S,ngh's case (supra) deals with notifications more proximate in point of time to the notifications with which I am concerned, I ati of theopifliOfl tha it would be just, fair and proper to determine the fair markej: the falr value of lands with which I am concerned in relation to iaket va,le of landS detrine •ih ase (supa). As per the decision 1n ratp • igh'5 case (supra) for the dat 24 7 1995, for Category A lands fair compensation assessed ws 2,15,160/- per bigha and 1,73,500I- per' bigha fr. Category land The first notification with which ;j am concerned is 25 2 1997 whereunder lands in Village ndka were acquire The time span sweeps 1 year and 216 iyj_ 1days In the was determined Prat1aP 5ing/ case (supra) aniu9L1naeaSe A to be 10% pei annum (flat) Thus, pertaflIng to Category LA APP 784/2005 & connected Page 16 of 19 I I r 23,93