Allowed

Dayanand & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.

Delhi HC4 Aug 2011LA.APP./518/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A Single Judge of the Delhi High Court determined the fair market value for land in villages Mundka and Bakkarwala acquired under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894, following precedents rather than relying on isolated sale deeds. The Court affirmed the enhanced compensation amounts but denied interest for the period of appeal delay.

What did the court decide?

Fair market value fixed for lands in villages Mundka and Bakkarwala; appeals by land owners decreed; interest on enhanced compensation for delay of 335 days denied.

Dayanand & Ors. Vs Union of India & Ors. — Land Acquisition | Delhi HC (2011)

¶1

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:AMULYA Certify that the digital file and physical file have been compared and the digital data i s as p er the physical file and no page is missing.

¶2

Accordingly, the present application is allowed with the condition that the appellants shall not be entitled to claim interest on the enhanced amount for the period of delay of 335 days in filing the appeal as also the costs of the appeal.

¶3

The application is disposed of.

¶4

LAAPP. 518/2011

¶5

¶6

By way of the present appeal, the appellants have assailed the judgment dated 28.05.2010 passed by the Reference Court in LAC No.3/08 arising out of Award No.13/DCW/2006-07 pertaining to village Mundka, pursuant to the notification dated 17.06.2005 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 (in short 'the Act'). Counsel for the appellants submits that the present case is squarely covered by the judgment of a co-ordinate Bench (Pradee9 Nandrajog, � 3.) �^passed in � a � batch � of^matters, lead � matter �^being LA.APP.No.784/2005 entitled � 'Jamna vs. � UOI &^{Ors.' decided} �^as draws the on 08.07.2011. Learned counsel particularly recently as attention � of^this �^{Court to} the operative para �^{33 of the} aforesakl judgment, relevant portions of which are reproduced herein below:-

¶7

"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:-

¶8

Page 2 of 4

¶9

LA.APP. 51812011

XXX

xxx

For the land situated in village Mundka the fair market value is fixed at 4,98,589I -^{per bigha, i.e.} 23,93,227.20 per acre, as on 17.06.2005.

¶14

xxx

¶15

xxx

¶16

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 Sunder vs. UOI, for the 93(2001) DLT 569 compensation, paid originally and as enhanced by the Reference Court and finally on the sum enhanced by the present judgment and decree."

¶17

�^{It is submitted by the counsel for the appellants that the} appellants are also entitled to the relief as granted to other similarl placed appellants in the aforesaid batch of matters, to which counsel for the respondent/UOI has no objection.

¶18

¶19

�^{Following the aforesaid decision dated 08.07.2011 in the case of} Jamna (supr, the present appeal is also disposed of on the same lines, while granting the same relief to the appellants as granted to the appellants in the LA.APP.784/2005. However, it is clarified that the appellants shall not be entitledto claim interest on the enhanced compensation for the period of delay of 335 days in filing the appeal as

¶20

LA.APP. 51812011

¶21

Page 3 of 4

¶22

¶23

also the costs of the appeal, in terms of the orders passed today in CM 14410/2011 preferred by the appellants for condonation of delay in filing the appeal.

HIMA KOHLI,J

AUGUST 04, 2011 rkb

LA.APP. 51812011

Page4 of4

I l;i

ii.

nhII

iII)

;1II I II

N THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶40

Da te of DcjIO. 8t^JUlY,2Q % ± 1:AZft^78412005, I Appeflant jA{V1NA Through �^{Mr L B Ra!, Advc cate,} Mr I S Dahya, Advocate Mr D S Lakra, Advocate, Mr Sunil, Advocate K MrAnuj Bhandall, Advocate I Mr Shadam Farashat, Advocate

¶41

Versus I Respondents UOI & ORS Through �^{Mr Sanjay Poddar, Stanifl} 1g Counsel (LA), GNCT Defti vith Ms Deepika, Mr 5ach1n a\4iani and Mr. Siddharth Panda Ado1ates Mr Ajay Vet ma, Ms Kanika Agnihotri, Mr Kunal Sharma, Mr Sumer Seth', Mr B B Sharma, Ms Shobhna Takiar and Mr Arun Birbal, Advocates for DDA

¶42

AN D :

¶43

� LAAPP � 879/20051 LAAPP �^{88o-881/2Op5�LAAPP} i 21/2006, 143/2007 (Relating to Notif, cation u/s 4 dated 25 02 1997 & Award No 2/1999-2000, Village Mundka)

¶44

AND

¶45

LA.APP. 583/2009,. LAAPP. 603/20091 LA.APP. 604/2009, LA APP 606/2009, LA APP 610/2009 74/2010, LA APP 78/2010,

¶46

LA APP 784/2005 & connected Page 1 of 19

¶47

I ,

¶48

• • � . � .•• •.
71 V I I1t �I
'i'i � 1' � 11IiI 1
II p
• • • • • • j u 1 r, II.I,II � J' •
• • • • •. . • � H. � • •
• � • • • • • • ': •
• •. .• •
•: • •• � •
I••• � '. •
1 .... -. �.... ••.•••-.• ........••_±......................................••..•

¶49

LAAP � 79JO1O, LAAPP � 121/2010, LAPP � 122/2010, LAAPP 125/2010, LAAPP � 164/2O1O, � LAAPP � 185/2010, LAAPP 186/2010, LA � APP � 200/2010, � LAAPP � 238/2010, LAAPP 239/2010, LAAPP � 243/2010, � LAAPP � 241/2010, LAAPP 245/2010, LAAPP � 247/2010, � LAAPP � 251/20 10 LAAPP 252/20101 LAAPP � 266/2010, � LAAPP � 267V2p10, LAAPP 273/2010, LAAPP � 274/2010, � LAAPP � 275fr410, LAAPP 312/2010, LAAPP � 324I2O1p � LA � APP � 3/Q1O, LAAPP 32712010, LAAPP � 329/2010, � LAAPP � 33V41O 1 LAAPP 331/2010, LAAPP � 332120101 LAAPP � 333/2O1i jith CM APPL No � 5524/011, LAAFP � 335/2010, LAAFP � 67/010, LAAPP 368/2010, LAAPP � 36/291O, 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 � 46112010, � LAAPP � 472/2010, LAAPP 694/2010, LA APP 696/2010 & CM APPL No '6340/2011, LA APP 697/2010, LAAPP � 698/2010 & CM � PPL � 173/2011, 1 4 LAAPP 706/2010 & CM APPL � 17215/2010, LA APP �^707/2010, LA APP 708/2010 L4APP � 709/2010 1^{LA APP} �^{10/2010 with CM APPL} No 2568/2011, LA APP �^{713/2010 with CM APPL' No 7473/2010,} LAAPP 75/2010, LA APP 717/2010, LA APP 719/2010/ LA APP 766/2010, LAAPP � 796/2010, � LAAPP �^797f2010, LAAPP 798/2010, LAAPP � 799/2010, � LAAPP �^818/2010, LAAPP 819/2010, LAAPP � 829/2010 � LAAPP � 831/2010 & CM APPL 955/2011, LAAPP � 832/2010 � LAAPP � 833/20.10 & CM APPL 6392/2011, � LAAPP � 834/2010, �^LAAPP �^842/2010 LAAPP 871/2010, LAAPP �874/2010, � LAAPP � 875/2010, LAAPP 876/2010, LA APP � 877/2010, � LA APP �^878/2010 LA APP 879/2010, LA APP � 880/2010, � LA APP �^881/2010 & �CM APPL650512011, LA APP � 882/2010, LAAPP �^883/2010 LAAPP 884/2010, LAAPP � 86/2010, � LAAPP � 888/2010, LAAPP 889/2010 & CM APPL2249/2011, � LAAPP �^890/2010, LAAPI 893/2010 & CM APPL � 6750/2011, �^{LA APP} �^894/2010 & CM No23353/2010, LAAPP � 895/2010, LAAP} � 896/2010, LAAPP 897/2010 & �CM � APPL728/2011, �^LAAPP �^903/2010, LAAPP

¶50

LA APP 784/2005'& connected

Page 2 of 19

907/2010, �LAAPP �^938/2010, �^LAAPP 939/201Q, �LAAPP 1034/2010 & CM APPL �3086/2011, LAAPP �^{1040/2010& CM} IPPL �5673/2011, �LA APP �^1041/2010, LA APP �1043/2010^{4 ,} L.AAPP �1045/2010, �^LAAPP �^1046/2010 LAAPP �1048/2010, LAAPP �1049/2010, �^LAAPP �^{1050/2010,LAAPP} �^1056/2010;, LAAPP �1060/2010 1 �LAAPP �^{1061/2010,LAAPP} �^1071/2010, UA APP 12$/2011, LA APP 126/2011, LA APP 258/2011

¶56

(Relating �to �Notification �u/s �⁴ �^dated �^{2103 2003 & Awar} No.3/20.0506, VilIageI .^{;M.undka) �•.} �..^. .. . �.• �^•. �^:..

¶57

AND

¶58

¶59

1 3 -ILAAPP �600/20091 LAAPP �^{605/T09,LAAPP} �^615/2009, [.APP 310/2010, LA APP 325/2010, LA APP 376/2010, LA APP 383/2010, �LAAPP �384/2010, �^LAAPP 385/2010, o �LAAPPI 473/2010, �.LA.APP.^. 492/2010,: LA.APP. 586)2010, �LAAPPL. 91/2010, �LAAPP �638/2010, �^{LAAPP690/200,} �^LAAPP 1 692/20.iO,LLA..APP: �711/2010, �^{LA.APP.7.16/2.010,} �^LAApP...:• 763/20k0, �LAAPP �872/2010, �^LAAPP 873/2010, �LAAPP' 88/2010, �LAAPIP �^887/2010, �^LAAPP 891/2010, Pl. 892/2010, LA APP �898/2010, LA APP �906/2010 & CM APPL r,Jo4443/2010, �LA'APP �937/2010 �^& �^{CMAPPL423299/2010} AAPP, 1042/201b., LA.. APP. 1047/2010

¶60

¶61

(ReIating �to �Notiiction �u/s �^.4 �dated �^21.0.3.2003 & Award No 1/200506, ViHgeMundka) . � ... �.. �.. . AND . ..

¶62

•

¶63

LA APP �1003/2010, �LA APP �1017/2010, LA APP �1919/2010 A.APP. �1022/2010 ; �LA.APP. �1.023/2010, LA.APP. �1044/20I LA APP �1051/2010, LA APP �1053/20101 LA APP �1054/2010 S CM �APPL �No5656/011, �LA �APP 1055/2010, �LAAPP1 1057/2010, LA APP �1058/010, �LA AP 059/2010, �LA APP' 1068/2010, �LAAPP �1069/2010, �LAAPP 124/2011,LAAPP' 127/2011, LA APP 128/2011, LA APP 259/2011 1 LAAPP784/2005&connected Page 3o119

¶64

LAAPP784/2005&connected

¶65

• �. �. �•j • • �• �• . ., 1,, . 4 �^7.•, • . �• �• • �I � • • • � . . .. �• �^.,.

,••.

b k f

(Relating � tQ � Notification � u/s �⁴ �^dated �^{17 06 2005�& �}^Award No 13/200607, Viilage-Mundka) AND • 1' LA APP � 40/2009 & Cross Objections, LA APP �^426/2009 AAPP � 428/2009, � 442/2009, �^{LA APP} �^611/2009, �^{LA APPt} 616/20091 LA APP 278/2010 Relting � to � Notification � u/s 4 � dated � 24 09 20 03 Award No^{3/2004-05, Village-Bakkarwala)} AND

¶71

¶72

LAAPP � 1029/2010 � & �^CM � No 5948/2011, � LAAPP 1030/2010: � LA APP � 1031/2010, �^{LA APP} �^1033/2010 �^{& �CM} FJo6645/2011, � LAAPP � 1062/2010, �^103/2010 �^& �^CM FJo6943/2011, LAAPP � 1064/2010, LAAPP �^{1066/2010, LAAPP} 1067/2010,LAAPP 11/2011,LAAPP 122/2011

¶73

(Relating � to � Notification � u/s �⁴ �^dated �^{17.06 2005} �^{& �}^Award No 1/2006-07, Village-Bakkarwala)

¶74

CORAM

¶75

HON'BLE MR JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG1

¶76

1 � Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment 7

¶77

2 � To be referred to Reporter or not 7

¶78

3 � Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

¶79

PRADEEP NANDRAIOG, I (Oral)

¶80

1 I � am � deciding � the � above � captioned � appeals � and rlatable civil miscellaneous applications which are by way of cross objectons, all of which have been listed hereinabOve

¶81

L � APP 784/2005 & connected

Page 4 of 19

4 4

)

4 . -. -•

• - �• • � •

,. �t -i . �^• l' . �i

;',4 : kL

.: :• � • �^r . ••:..•

¶93

... �... � ,. �... �..

¶94

¶95

)

¶96

2 �The present deosion concerns issue of fixation offafr market valueof land in the revenue estate of Village Bakkarwà and village Mundka 1 (

¶97

¶98

3 �The dates on which fair marketvalue ofthe land has

¶99

to be determined may be graphically noted as under -

¶100

S No �Name of ViHage �Date of notification under

¶101

Section 4 of th �LA Act 1 � Bakkarwala � 24 92003 2 � Bakkarwafa � 17 6 2005 3 � Mundka 25 r. 2 1997 4 � Mundka 213.2008 5 � Mundka 1762005

¶102

4 � It may be highlighted that the notification at seial S.

¶103

No 2 hereinabove, pertaining to village Bakkarviala, is the

¶104

pursuant whereto lands were acquired in therevenue estate 1 of Villa9e Mundka, as per serial No 5 above

¶105

¶106

5 � Abutting NH-lU, leading from the city of Delhi to the si township of Rohtak in the State of Haryana, are villages Mundka, Ghevra and Tikri Kalan �Village �BakkarwaJa lies towards the other side of the Southern boundary of village Mundka �The difference between the topology of th �two villages is, wheres the �land �of �village �Mundka �abuts �NH-lU, �that �of �villag1e Bakkarwala does not so abut, being on the other side of the Southern boundary of revenue estate of village Mundka

¶107

As we proceed from the city of Delhi to the township of. Rohtak, village Mundka is crossed first, followed by villag Ghevra and then village Tikri Kalan

¶108

Agricultural �lands in village Mundka were acquired

age5o9

(

. � : �•••. : � • � :• � •--••. � .—. ... 1 1 '• . • - . . � . ;. � . � , . � , �I • � k . :

¶114

(

¶115

¶116

pursuant to a notification dated 25 2 1997 issued unde1 Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act as per. award No 2/1999/2000 gricuItural lands in the revenue estate of village Mundka were urther � aqquired � pursuant to � a � notifiction � dated � 21 3 2003 ssued urder Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act as p ier award No 3/2005-06 as also award No 1/2005-06 � Further 'ands in the revenue estate of the same village were acquired pursuant to a .notifictio.n dated 17.6.2005 isued under Sectidn 4 of.the Lánd• Acquisition Act as per Award No 13/2006-07

¶117

8 Agricultural � lands � in the � revenue �^estate �^{of village} Bakkarwala � were � acquired � pursuant �^to �^a �^notificatiop �^dated 24 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 he �^{ame village were acquired pursuant to a notification dated} 4 6 2005 (the same notification under which lands in village Mundka were acquired) as per award No 1/2006-07

¶118

9 In � a � nut � shell, � the � Land �^Acquisition �^Collectdr etermined the fair market value of the acquired I'ands, under all the awards, with reference to the mimum price for agriculturl ni iand as notified by the Governmet of NCT Delhi '40 For � clarity � I � may � rote � that � pertaining �^to �^th otification dated 25 2 1997 under wch agricultural lands i the revenue estate of village Mundka were acquired, the learned - � . . . �; . i � L. Land Acquisition Collector determined the fair market value with efrence to � he � minimum price? for ariciftural land � notifie ith effect from 1 4 1997 @ �^{10 lcs pe'r acre and since the dat} of Section 4 notification was anteri 4or in point of time, discounte

¶119

A.AP.784/2005& connected . . � Page 6bf:19 .; 4 c 1 4 4 i 1 S ... ••.• ', .. . -• 4 •_ A. 4 ,. . �•. �- �. . �^. .. . . �'S. . ., 4' t 4 4 4 4 �1 4 , S 'S . . � ., . - .5._. - . !- � . S � •,

¶120

¶121

. � ' t �. . . � :, .. � . � • �, . � : •:. . � . �.... �• . H? �• . . �.. �.. ... •.:• •• : . ; ! . :• •, ; � •: • . .: , � i.,... Ii i A t . . . . . . .... �. .. . . . . : • . . � . . .. . .'" k; . . S � •( • �• ...

¶122

(

¶123

the price for on �year @ 11 5% per ar �This price was adoed for category A lands �For lands itegoy �, t h e value Las further discounted by �9O,OOO/- per �Pertaining to the otifications �dated �2 ,1.3.2003 �and �$2003, �the �Land kAcquisition �Collector �relied �upon �the �ification �fixing �the hiinimum price of agricultural land as of14 2001 and gave n benefit of enhancement with reference tithe fact that the fai tnarket value of the lands to be determine �was as of 21 3 2003 and �24 9 2003 �Even �pertaining �to �th �notification �dated 17 6 2005 �which �required �fair �market �v1ie �of �land �to �be determined �in the revenue estate of vilIae Bakkarwala and iIlage Mundka as of 17 6 2005, the Lan �Aquiition Collector de'term �the same with .refeence t, �. minimum value of agricultural lands in Delhi � s of, 1 4 2001 and gave no increase

¶124

Ti �Aggrieved by the determination of the fair market vaIue of the lands by the Land Acquisition CoRector, the Iand o1wriers �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, �th �Reference �Court �took corrective action, as per the view of the Reference Court, and ehhacicedthéfairmarketvalue

¶125

¶126

12 �In �a �nut shell, �pertaining �to the �ntification �dated 25 2 J997 vide which agricultural lands in village Mundka were acquired, the Reference Court adopted the sam �notification as was adopted by the Land Acquisition Collector under which the

¶127

LA APP 784/2005 & cohnected

¶128

Page 7 of 19

¶129

• • • • •• �• •
£ •. .

¶130

r ,• •• �• ...."• �•.. • • � •• - I •.. �:..

-. I.

I -

•

'Governthent of NCT Delhi had fixedthe minimum value for agricultural lands in Delhi � e � 1 4 1997 1^{but as against the Land} cquisition Cllector depressing the price @^{11 5% for full one} year, adopting the percentage 11 5, decreased the value by nly 34 days inasmuch as the date with referen �ce �whe reto Government had notified the minimum value ws 1 4 1997 and t h e notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was dated 25 2.1997. � This was the value fixed for category A lands, a n d � for category � B � lands, � with �^{reference to the values for} category A land depressed the same by � 90,000/- per acre Thus, � for � category � A � lands � the � Reference �^Court ietermined the fair market value @ �^{9,89,288/- per acre and for} category B land the same was determined @ �^8,99,288I- pe'r, acre 14 Pertaining to the notifications dated 21 3 2003 and 24 9 2003 whereunder agricultural lands in village Mundka and iillage Bkkarwala � respectively were acquired, the Reference ourt 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 2005 � Using the said dates and the minimum price notified by the Government of NC1 Delhi, � the � Reference � Court � adopted � the � principle � of � mear average � What the Reference Court did was tá adopt the value s of 1 4 2001 and increasing the same by 10% per annurr determined � the � enhanced � price � as � of � 21 3 2003 � as � aIsc 24 9 2003 � Thereafter the � Reference Court took the value iiotified as of 30 8 2005 and depressing the same by 10% per t

¶136

Page8ofl9 •.:. ' � 1 .... � . �.. � .. .. I I - �.. � .-. .-. .. . �. �.. . �. �. �.. ...... ............ . �. � . . .:• .-^.......... • :. � - �•'. - �:-' . �. �. :.

¶137

I -

¶138

nnum deterined the sum arrived at as of 21 3 2003 as m also 24 9 2003 The two sums arrivec at were added and divided by, two to arrive at the man figure as of 21 3 2003, which I not e e comes to Z15,92,^{,083 33 per acre (In some decisions I noteth7} urn arrived at is fl592,215/-) For the date 24 9 2003 the pnce determined was 20,41,000/- per acre 15 �Pertaining hto the notification dated 17 6 2005 pursuant whereto agricultural lands were acquired in village Bakkarwal and Mundka the learned Reference Court adopted

¶139

¶140

he minirium price for agricultural lands notified by té Government of NCT Delhi with effect from 1 42001 ard giving iperease c10% per annum determined te 'value and witIj respect tote lands In village Mundka, on account of Iocational advantage, being abutting NH-lU gave 5% more and determine the fair market value as of 17 6 2005 in sum o 21,37,017 75 per acre and f o r village Bakkrwala the pric determined was 20,35,255/- per acre

¶141

16 �In the aforesaid backdrop of the factual scnario in which I have penned profiled the reasoniqg of the Land 4cquisition Collector as also that of the Reference Court I delv ihtb^{the aruments advanced before me during hearing today} 17 �With reference to the evidence led in LAC No 384/004 Jamna Vs UQI & Ors, it was urged by ShL B Rait linArnpri` �iñci fr th � nniInt ini N' 7RdI?flfl

¶142

¶143

1^{8nd 3 biwa of agicultural land in viIlage Mundka was sold as of} 5 8 1q96 for a sl � consideration of � 4,75,000/- �^38,000I-was inurred towards Sale duty and thus the price of the land would j.

¶144

be � 5,13,OOO/- and calculated with reference thereto, land price I

¶145

per bigha would come to � 4,46,000I- as of 5 8 1996 � Learned counsel wold urge that there is no reason not to hold that fair t . . .. . . . . . . .;.

¶146

mrket � value � of � agricultural � lands �ⁱⁿ � village �^Mundka �^was

¶147

' � 4,46,000/- fper bigha as of 5 8 1996 � Taking the argument foward, it is ured 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 � pursuant

¶148

S �^{wFiereto agricultural lands were acquired in village [lundka, by}

¶149

¶150

ahd � 1,73,50QI-^{for category B land,} �^{2 35,850 for category} 14 land � 'and � 1,90,150/- � for �^category �^B �^land, �⁴^_1_02,850I- �^for category � A � land � and � 3,24,850I- �^for �^{category�B �land,} I respectively

¶151

18 14 may � rote � here � tHt � in � various �^land �^acquisitions rferences, various parties have proved a number of sale deeds 4^{ecuted from time to time, but during arguments today before} rre, learned counsel for the land owners have only relied upon1

¶152

the sale deed Ex P-i

¶153

19 Per contra, Sh Sanjay Poddar learned counsel for thej 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 bear some adequat&' , propo,rtion to the whole �^{For example, learned counsel would} uge that if it has to be determined whether what percentage of

¶154

¶155

sones a • re^{mixed in a bag of rice it woUld notbe a sfe:méthod} t9^{pick only one grain, for if it happens to be the grain of rice} oie would lead to the conclusion that the bag js 100 0 6 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 he lifted and then checked as a representative sample, is the example given � The second reason on wh 4 ich le'arned � counsel � would � attack � the �^s&e �^deed �^as �^{not �being} representative of the price is the reason that peopl � do come to

¶156

r (.

¶157

know about pending acquisition inasmuch as before cquisitions are made, lnd in the area. is surveyd. Without a sirvey ft

¶158

¶159

¶160

f the Land Acquisition Act � Learned counsel would cnede that the reasons given by the learned Refernce Court � re not pund 1 but would urge that the two conteons advanced by imsould be considered by this Court as the reasons as to why Ex F-1 be not taken as the basis to determine the fair market alue � of � lands � in � village � Mundka � and � Bakkarwala � Thirdly, 1arnei coLnsl would further urge that the four sale deeds Ex R-1 � to � R-4t referred � to � in � the � decision � of � the � learned 1 Feference � court � pertaining � to � sale � deeds � dated � 6 1 1995, 30 5 1997, 4 611997 and 8 9 1997 � relied upon by UOI would show the actual � market value of the land and fthus learned gounsel would � urge that the said four sale deeds should be considered, � but � hastens � to � add, � that � since � value � reflected ther kein �^{is �less �than �the �minimum�price �notified�by �the} overnment, 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 issued undr Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act

¶161

20 An � independent � and � alternative � argument �^is �^also advnced by learned counsel for the Union � The same rests iesei � on a idetision of a Division Bench of this 1 Court reported as 20o6.(135) DLI 231 Ia! Singh Vs 1101 21 � The decision nJSingh's case (supra) concerns itself,

I I
I
¶ I I

_______I

--------------I

k.;. . �! � •' . �. S • ••• �• � 1 ;

¶169

.--..---.- -.----.

¶170

s Pepitions for SpeciI Leave to Appeal filed before the Supreme Court by either side hav �^{been dtsmssed} �^{Leaned counsel} fakes th �^{argument forward by urging that by adoting the�air} ark �et^{value of, land in village Bakkarala a} s of 151 ,J �993 at 1,32,OOO/- �per �^bigha, �^the �^fair �^{market �value �should �b �}^' ascertained by increasing the price progressively by 10% per . 1 ' �• •: • ..: �^'•• nnum, tq �^determine �^the �^{market �value �of �land �in �villag} kkarwala as of 24 9 �^{003 as also 17 6 2005} �^{Learned counsel} ivould urge that in view of the locational advantage of village Mundka, fair market value of land in village Mundka �^{hould be} 1etermined as of 25 2 1997, 21 3 2003 and 17 6 2005, by giving

•

5% increase

With^{respect to the sale deed Ex P-i, 'wheeunder 1} thgha �and �3 �^biswa �^of �^agricultural �^{land �was �sold �ii} Village undka as of 5 8 199, it would assume Importance that th gale is about 7 months prior to the date of the notification issued upder Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, which was issued on 25 �1997 �^{It is a matter of, common knowledge that preceding} thepublication of a �^notification �^{under Section} 4 of the La n kcquisition �^Act, �^suçvey's �^{are �carried �out �witi �the �object} d.e'termining �as �to �^what �^lands, �^{comprised �in �which �khasra} umbers and fields �^{re required to be notified for the propose} cquisition and when this happens peOple in the4 area come to 4; �•• �..••' know that very soon there is every likelihood that the lands ivoulØ �be acquired �^In �^{Delhi, the 1,arge scale acutsition po1ic} enjoins upon the Government to allot, at pre determined rates,

¶176

plot of developed residential land to the ones whose lnds ar

¶177

¶178

¶179

� : �^{:.: �. �} ••: �^{: �. �,.} L • ' . . . � . � .. �. � . � ...

¶180

;•

¶181

ac6uired a n d thus^{1 it is not uncommon, for persflS to purchase} snaII parceIs of lands in areas where acqUisftloflS are likely, to I �¹ ' take place, these transactions are speculative and cannot be i taken to be a representative measure of te fair market value of lapd as on the date of the sale �^{Further, t h eprinciples of ratio} arjd �proporion �^{as �also �the �principles �of �averages �and �the} p5ncip1es of, sampling tell me that to be representative of the I whole, �a �^sample �^{must �bear �at �intelligible �proportion �to �theI}

¶182

whole �^{Thus, not for the reasoning advanced by the learned} Reference Court, but for the twin reasoning hitherto-fore noted, I h9ld that Ex P 1 cannot be good evidence wherefrom market vMue of the jand could be determined^{�There is an additionalt} rason not to rely upon the said sale deed The sale deeds Ex R- ito 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 agricultural land in beihi notified by

¶183

¶184

tte Government

¶185

23 �^{Thus, the fair market value of the lands would be} ruired to be fixed either with reference to the decision of Ahis qourt injL1L24tLcSe (^{supra) or}^{_PratapSincjh'S_case (supra)} 24 �^{I highlight that both decisions, penned by the Division} ench of this Court have been upheld by the Supreme Court

¶186

�^{The decision in}^{_La'_SingcaSe (supra) determined} fa ir �market �^{value �of �land �in �Village �BakkarWala �in �sum �o} f 1,32,000/- per bigha as of 15 10 1993, and the perusal thereof 1 Page l4of 19

¶187

LApp784/2OO5&connected

¶188

: I.

¶189

¶190

ouId shpw that the Court asessed the fair marketvlue with reference to sale deds executed between the years 1990 tiil the year 1996 either in VilFage Tikri Kafan or Village Mundka, apparently on the premise tht being contigtjous villagers, sale price of agricultural �land in the 2 �adjoining villages wpuld be iidicative of fair market value of land in Village Bakkarwala

¶191

26 �In Pratap Singh's ,case (supra), the Division Bench was concerned with agricultural lands in Tikri Kalan and another djointng �Village �named �Ghevra �and �pertaining �to �various1 rotificatiors issued under .^{Section 4 of the Land Acquistion Act} etermined the fair market value of agricultural lands in ViIlage Tikri Kalan and Ghevra as under -

¶192

• �^{SNO �Tbate} �^Village

¶193

^O�	^�Tbate�	�	^Village	Price per Bigha
1	24 07 1995 16 1 L 1995	&	Tikri Kalan	2,15,160/- for. Block A&�1,73,500/- for , Block Bland
2	11 0,6 1996		Tikri�Kalan�& Ghevra	2,35,815/- for Block A�Z 1,90,156/- for
				Block B land
3.	17 12 2002 I		Tikri Kalan ., :. .�.•	4,02,850/- for Block A.&�3,24,850/- for .�..�......�^I.. ,,..- Block B land

¶194

•

¶195

24 �Following the judgment in Pratap Singh's case (supra)

¶196

I khav6 decided the fair market value for the land situated in 1^{rvenue estte of VilIgeGhevra, which was acquired pursuant} to notification dated 6 2 2003 in the batch of appeals being �an LA APP 784/2005 & connected Page 15 of 19

¶197

'I .. �•. �. �.. . ..... . �. �. �.(.. �. j , .. I � I

F L.

t �-

-- -- . � . . . � . . .. . . . . , � .. . .

¶202

AcUlSitOfl^{Appeal No}^{489/2009, Chrani! La! vs�QQflfldIa&} I Anr^{on 2 6 2011 I have determined the fair market value of the} per bigha as of 6 2 2003 I at 4,03,425I lands in Village Ghevra On the issue of omparabilitY of land in village BakkarWala with it is no doubt true that village Mundka, Ghevra and Tikri Kalan, I whereas village BakkarWala does not abut NH-10, as do the it is^more it^{has to be highLighted that} otier viilagS, but poximate to the urban areas of Delhi vis-a-viS Ghevra and Tikri I . . .. . . � .^n.adVantage. Klanáfld to that extnt ,ua said 2 vfllages, ha i. Since exactness 1^{can never be achieved in the matters of} it^{is the broad} �pr^{obabilities and} assessing fair compensation, similarities which matter^{�Thus, I hold all 4 villages tO be} S �^{equivalents unless qua some land special features can be shown} case (supra) i 2 , Since the decision in^{Pratap 5itgh's} daIs with notificatIOflS more proximate in point of time to the notifications with which I am concerned, I am of the opinion that it^{would be just, fair and proper to determine the fair market} value of lands with which I am concerned in relation to the fair pra tap5igLca5e (supra) 1.5 rharketvalue of lands determined in As per the decision in Pratp^{**Sig7'**case (supra) for the datei} 1 7 1q95, for Category A lands fair compensation assessed was per bigha for Category B 1,73,500I- 2,15,160/- per bigha and Ind The first notification with which I am concerned is 5 25 2 1997 whereunder, lands in Village Mundka were acquired j1 days In Th time span sweeps 1 year and 216 rease was determine9 the annUal in 5inqh' case (supra)

¶203

~ (^{o be 10% per annum (flat) Thus, pertaining to Category A}

¶204

I �^Page^16of¹⁹ APP 784/2005 & connected I .

¶205

S ..... . . .. :.

¶206

'1 I	c . ....,.	. . . .	.�. .	. ..	.�.. :1

,. ... ,. . . . . . , ; �-•••.-- ---- .. .. � L . .. � .. . • • ••• • -•••• • •: •• • .•. • � •.• , :L. • . • • . •• :. •. . .• S • • ••• • � ••• • ' • • • •• •

• .

c :

• ••• ; • p

.•••H' lands, the fair �^{arket value asessed is} • .•,'^{�2,49408 75 per bigha} . •fr•• •; , B land ~ , I assess the e �¹¹ 1^{97,162/- per acre and for Category} fir market yalue at �^{2,01,117I- per bigha} i e � 9,65,361 60 pert •1 • : • • acre. • •

¶217

29 The next notification with which I am concernedj.j � In �^{hirají La/'s}

¶218

dated 2 �^{32003 pertaining to Village Mundka} cs (supra) with reference to the decision in Pratap Sin �^case (supra), for agriG:ultural lands in Village Ghevra pertaining to a nbtification issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act on 6 2 2003, the fair market value assessed was ?4,03,4251 - ped �^{Since there is a t} i me gap of

¶219

bigha �^{This was uniformly applied} • • •• • • • • • • just a litle over 1 month, I am of the opinion that pertaining tot . 1^{**.**3.2003, fair market va.ie of land in}

¶220

t h e notification dated 2 \iillage Mundka should be �^{_4,03,425I -_ie �19,36,40i- per acre,} which I hereby fix

¶221

30 I � propose �^to �^{deal �with �the �notification�dated;} 24 9.2 d03, after dealing with the notification dated 17 6 2005 pursuant whereto �^{agricultural�lands were�acquired�in Village1} Mundka and Village Bakkarwala

¶222

31 As noted hereinabove, in chirani, La/s^{case (supra),} pertaining to the notifictiOfl dated 6 2 2003, fair market valuet assessed by me was �^{_4,03,425I �_per bigha and thus, increaslng} the same by . 10% f o r^{2 years and 131 days, the figure comes to} . Si Z 4,98,589I7^{per bigha, which comes to T23,93,227 20 per pere} The same is held by^{me to be the fair market value of land} , ifl � I decree 1 yillage Mundka and Village Bakkarwala as of 17 6 2005 • • • • • •• • : Y • the same

¶223

1^Pagel7ofl9 LAApP784/2005&connected

¶224

• � I I • • • • • • • • .• � •• • • •• • � •
• •L • • • • •• • •, •. ••.
• •.• k
•
L t ••• •
• .• • • �• • • • • •
I • • •
• I •• � ••• ,•.• • •.. ,-• '• � ••' '• •
• •• • •• • • •
, • • • •

¶225

- �-- �T . �. : • �• �. . . .,. . • .. . �. : . �. �• .' .. . .. ... �, . ' : �• �• ... • t t

jk^.

12_ I �am �left �^with �^the �^{notification �dated �24 9 �0O3} 1 1 prtaining to Viage Bakkarwala and with reference to the fair market value assessed in^{Chiranti Lal's} case, I would require to r a 1^{ppreciate the price by 10% per annum for a period of 201 days,} te ftgre domes to �^{4,25,641I-per bighaie �20,43,076 80 per} atre, Which I determine to be the fair market value of land in . . �. ..' . Village Bakkarwala as of 24 9 2003 el 33 �^{Accordingly, the appeals filed by the Union of India1} rquire to be dismissed and I hereby disrruss the same^�The1 1 appeals^{,filedity the land owners and the cross-objections f11ed} by^{the land owners stands decreed as under -}

¶230

¶231

For �the �land �^falling �ⁱⁿ �^{Category �A �land �in �Village} Mundka �the �fair �^market �^{value �is �fixed �at �is} 2,49,40 �75 per big ha^ie 11,97,162/- per �a^{cre andj} for Category B. lands, the fair market value is fixed at^t 2,01,117I-^{per bigha} i e �9,65,361 60 per acre, asi on 25 02 1997

¶232

For �the �land �^situated �ⁱⁿ �^{Village �Mundka �the �fair}¹ I �^{market value �is fixed at �4,03,425/- �pe �} r bigha �ⁱ e 19,36,440I-^{per acre, as on 21 03 2003}

¶233

For the , �an �^situated �ⁱⁿ �^{Village �Mundka �the �fair} market value �is fixed �^at �^4,98,589/- �^{per bigha �i1e} 23,93,227 20 per acre, as on 17 06 2005 iv) �For the land situated �^{in Village Baikarwala the fair} market value is fixed at t4,98,589/- per bigha �^ie AAPP784/2005&connected Pagel8ofl9

¶234

i I 'I • �'•. �... .. �y � . �. �. �. •• l • 1' �: I � • . �'. . . �. �.,. . � . �. �. �^{•. �} .^': . . . �.. .. I •'' 1 •• ., ��•. .•• .• •,. �•.• �' �•. . . i • . .. I �^I •' 1 •' . �• -• . �. � • �• �- Il • . �.. . 'I •' . :' •1

4 23,93,227 20 per acre, as on 17 06 205.1
For the land situated in Village Bakkarwhe fair mrket value is fixed �at�4,25,64l/- per�ha�ie
20,43 076 80 per acre, as on 24 09 2003 Appellants and cross-objectors who have succeeded would also be entitled to solatium and intrest as per statute and 4as clarified in the decision reporteã as
93(2001)�DLT�569�_Sunder�vs�110/,�_for�the
compensation,�paid originally and as enhanced �by
the Reference Court and finally on the �um enhanced
by the present judgment and decree The�appellants�and�cross-objectors :who�succeed would also be entitled to proportionate costs I
All pending applications stand disposed of in terms of th�prayers made therein

I 1

I JULY 08, 2011 mm

(PRADEEP NiNDRAJOG) JUDGE

¶243

LA APP 784/2005 & connected Page 19 of 19 1 I.: 4 4 j 1 I . . . �� . I ---• . --.. �� ...- �� ... . �.-. �.- �.-. �.- .-. �.- �.- .- I 4 -. :- � .. - �............. �............. ............. � .- -. �.4--. ' ...... �. �� . �. �. . ..' �.-. �.-. .-. .'.. . �. ��............ .•'.-

¶244

. . �� . I --.. �� ...- �� ... . �.-. �.- �.-. �.- .-. �.- �.- .- 4- - �............. �............. ............. � .- 1 � ; ...... �. �� . �. �. . ..' �.-. �.-. .-. .'.. . �. ��............ .•'.H

Dayanand & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dayanand & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ramanand Vs Union of India & Ors.

Shushila Vs Union of India & Ors.

Mahabir Goel Vs Union of India & Ors.

Padam Kumar Vaid Vs Union of India & Ors.

Smt Bala Vs Union of India & Ors.

Krishna Janmotsav Samiti Punjabi Bagh Vs Ks Mehra & Ors.