Disposed

Padam Kumar Vaid v. Union of India & Ors.

Delhi HC4 Aug 2011LA.APP./520/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The appellant appealed a reference court's award fixing market value of land in Mundka. The court disposed the appeal with a condition: no interest on enhanced compensation for a 450-day delay and no costs of appeal.

What did the court decide?

same relief as other appellants in LA.APP.784/2005 without interest on enhanced compensation for 450‑day delay and without costs of appeal

Padam Kumar Vaid Vs Union of India & Ors. — Maintenance and Alimony | 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 appellant shall not be entitled to claim interest on the enhanced amount for the period of delay of 450 days in re-filing the appeal as also the costs of the appeal.

¶3

The application is disposed of.

¶4

LA.APP. 520/2011

¶5

By way of the present appeal, the appellant has assailed the judgment dated 12.12.2009 passed by the Reference Court in LAC No.18/09/08 arising out of Award No.01/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

¶6

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:-

¶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 crossobjections filed by the land owners stands decreed as under: - '

¶8

LA.APP. 52012011

¶9

Page 2 of 4

¶10

I) � xxx

¶11

ii) 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

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

¶16

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

¶17

-4

¶18

Following the aforesaid decision dated 08.07.2011 in the case of Jamna (surjra), the present appeal is also disposed of on the same 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 450 days in re-filing the appeal

¶19

LAAPP. 52012011 Page 3 of 4

¶20

as also the costs of the appeal, in terms of the orders passed today in CM 14418/2011 preferred by the appellant for condonation of delay in

¶21

re-filing the appeal.

HIMA KOHLI,J

AUGUST 04, 2011 rkb

LA.APP. 52012011

¶26

Page4 of 4

¶27

.�' % :�•,�• • ; c JAMNfA	; .�. . . . DateofDeCI5/Ofl 8th_Ju/y2c.fl_ . *784L20P* AppeUant Through�^{Mr L B Rai, Advocate,} MrI^{S Dahiya, Advocate,} Mr 05^{Lakra, Advocate,} Mr K Sunil, Advocate, Mr.Anuj Bhandari, Advocate Mr.Shadam Farashat, Advoate..
I	Versus
UOI & .ORS • • : •	Respondents ThrOugh:.�^{Mr.SanJaY Poddar, Standing} Counsel (LA), GNCT Delhi with Ms.eepika, Mr.Sachifl Nawani and Mr. Siddharth Panda Advocates Mr.Ajay Verma, Ms.Kanika A9hiho1ri, Mr.Kunal Sharma, Mr.Sumer Sethi, Mr.B.B.Sharma, Ms.Shobhfla Takiar and Mr.Arun Birbal, Advocates for DDA	CT
±LA.APP� 121/2006, 14 25.02.1997 A	AND • �^879/2005,�^{LA.APP.�880-881/2005,�LA.A'PP.} 3/2007 (Relating to Notification •uls 4 dated ward No2/199-2OOO, Village Mundka) AND

•

4 �^{LA.APP. 583/2009, LA\PP.} 60312009, LA.APP. 604/2009, LA.APP. 606/2009, LA.APP. 610/200, 74/2010, LA.APP. 78/2010,

¶32

Page lof 19 � • LA.APP.784/2005 connected /

¶33

- •1. 1' ' � c • • � If ;ii • �^c F

¶34

• -

¶35

I : �• . �. �.. .... . '.. � . �, �.. ;- . �'.- � . ' . . �:.. • �. �. �... tLAAPP � 79A2010, LAAPP �^{121/2010, LAAPP} 122/2010, LAAPP 125/2O1O, � LAAPP � 164/2010, �^LAAPP 185/2010, � LAAPP ' 186/2010, �^LA �^APP �^200/2010, �^{LA APP} 238/2010, � LA APP ; 239/201O � LAAPP � 243/2010, � LAAPP 44/2010, � LAAPP 245I2O1O, � LAAPP �^247/2010, �^LAAPP 251/2010, � LAAPP 252/2010, � LAAPP � 266/2010, �^LAAPP 267/2010, � LAAPP 273/2010, � LAAPP � 274/2010, �^LAAPP 275/20101 � LAAPP 1312/2010, � LAAPP � 324/2010, � LA �^APP 326/2010, � LAAPP 327/2W[O � LA APP � 329/2010, �^{LA APP} 330/2010, � LA APP 331/2010, L1 APP � 33212d10,^{LA APP} �^{333/2010 with CM APPL} ? No � 5524/2011, LAAPP � 335/2010, LAAPP 367/2010, LAAPP 368/20101 � LAAPP � 369/2010, �^LAAPP �^371/2010 & CM APPL No20099/12010, LAAPP � 374/2010, LAAPP 375/2010, LAAPP 377/2010, � LAAPP � 379/2010, �^LAAPP 423/2010, � LAAPP 452/2010, � LA APP � 461/2010, 2 LAAPP 472/2010, � LA APP 694/2010, LA APP 696/2010 & CM APPL No 6340/2011 1^{LA APP} 697/2010, LAAPP � 698/2010 & CM APPL 1734/2011, LAAPP 706/2010 & CM APFQ � 17215/2010, LA APP^{�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 747/2010,} LAAPP 715/2010, LAAPP 717/2010, LAAPP 719/2010, LAAPP 766/2010, � LAAPP , 796/2010, �^LAAPP 797/2010, � LAAPP 798/2010 1 �^LAAPP �^799/2010, �^LAAPP 818/2010, � LAAPP 819/2010, � LAAPP � 829/2010, � LAAPP � 831/2010 & CM APPL p 955/2011, LAAPP � 832/2010, � LAAPP � 833/2010 & 1 CM APPL . �² 6392/2011, � LAAPP � 834/2010, �^LAAPP 842/2010, � LA4IPP 871/2010, � LAAPP � 74/2010, �^LAAPP 875/2010, � LAAPP, 876J2910, � LflPP � 77/2010, �^LAAPP 878/2010, � LAAPP' 879/2010, � LAAPP � 880/2010, . �. ��^LAAPP . 881/2010 � & . � CM 'APPL6505/2011 � LAAPP � 882/2010, LAAPP 883/2010, LAAPP, 884/2010, � LAAPP � 88612010, �^LAAPP 888/2010, � LAAPP p889/2010 & CM APPL2249/2011, � LAAPP 890/2010, 893/2010 & CM �,i PPL � 6750/2011, � LA APP � 894/2010 & CM No 23353/2010, LA APP � 895/2010, LA APP 896/2010 4, LA APP ,897/2010 � & � CM � APPL728/2011, �^LAAPP 903/2010c � LAAPP LA APP 784/2005 & connected Page 2 of 19 3 1 - I . :....................• ••. • �• �• �^: �.1. • I F 1 4 2 • �•.. �'• An I I 1 4 � 4 4 1 '.•••

•

• �. �.

•

.4,

! -... � . � ' � . . , � .. � . �. .,... .. ' � . �^:• . • L t . , ' H 907/2010,

¶41

LAAPP � 938/2010, �^LAAPP �^{99f2010,�LAAPP} 1034/2010 & CM APPL �^{3086/2011, LA APP} �^1040/2010^_&_CM ¶APPL � 5673/2011, �^LAAPP �^{1041/2010,�LAAPP �1043/2010,} LA APP � 1045/2010, �^{LA APP} �^{1046/2010,�LA APP �1048/2010,} LAAPP � 1049/2010, �^LAAPP �^1050/2010, �^{LAAPP �1056/2010,} LAAPP � 1060/2010, �^LAAPP �^{1061/2010,LAAPP} �^1071/2010 LA^{APP 125/2011, LA APP 126/2011, LA APP 258/2011}

¶42

(ReIating 4 � to � Notification � u/s �⁴ �^{dated �21 03 2003�& �Award} No 3/2005-06, Vjllage-Mundka)

¶43

• '�AN D 4. .4 LAAPP�600/2009, LAAPP�	�^{60512009, LAAPP}�^615/2009,
LAAPP 310/2010, LAAPP 325/2010,	LAAPP 376/2010, LA APP
383/2010,�LAAPP�384/2010,�	�^LAAPP�^{385/2010,�LAAPP,}
473/2010,_�_LAAPP�492/2010,�	�^LAAPP�^586/2010,�^LAAPP
591/2010,�LAAPP�638/2010,�	�^LAA}P�^{690/2010,�LAAPP}
.4'692/2010,�LAAPP�711/2010,�	�^LAAPP�^716/2010,�^LAAPP
763/2010,�LAAPP�872/2010,�	�^LAAPP�^873/2010,�^LAAPP
88A2O1Q,�LAJPP�^887/2010,�	�^LAAPP�^{891/2010,�tAAPP}
892/2O10, LAAPP�898/2010, LAA	PP�^{906/2010 & CM APPL}
'No443/2010,�LAAPP�937/2010	�^&�^CM�^APPL�^23299/2010,
LA APP1042/2010, LA APP 1047/21	0

¶44

(ReIatng � to � Notification � u/s � 4 � dted � 21 03 2003 �^{& �Award} No 11)p5-06, Viilage-Mundka)

¶45

..................................................................................... AN ID , - •-;•...• � ... .,., . �•1 :. LAAPF � 1003/2010, � LAAPP � 1017/2010, � LAAPP � 1019/2010, LAAPP' 1022/2010, � LAAPP/1023/2010, � LAAPP � 1d44/20101 LA APP � 1051/2010, LAAP 1P" 1053/2010, LA APP � 1054/2010 & CM � ARPL � No5656/20'1, � LA � APP � 1055/2010, � LAAPP 1^{1057/2010.�LA APP �4 1058/2010,�LA APP �1059/2010,�LA APP,} 1068/2019, LAAPP � 1069/2010, � LAAPP � 124/2011, � LAAPP f127/2011.LA APP 128/2011, LA APP 259/2011

¶46

•

¶47

LA APP	784/200	5&connec	ted		,�	�Page 3 of 19
I		. -:	,.. .	.1 ..,. ..,�••�.�. . . •	4.4	. .•. ..�..�•.	.
I 4		.4
							4
						. ..	..	.�.
					.1..			4
				.4				4
I .	.�	. •	.	.�.�.�.. . .. .•		.• .
				• .•	:	•�•	-.�•
.	. : •	•	. •. .	. .�.. .�.. .�. . .	.	. .• ....�	. . �•

¶48

• . .

¶49

¶50

i t

¶51

2 � Te pret decision concerns issue of fixation ofr market value of Iarid in the revenue estate of Viflage Bakkarwa and village Mundka ,

¶52

3 �The dtes on which fair market value of the land hs to be determined may be graphtcally noted as under -

¶53

(	SNo� :'•	�Name�Villge�	�Date of notification under , Sction4oftheLAAct ••
	: 1 & 2 J� 3� 4�	:• ; • Bakkarwala� �Rakkarwala.,� �Mundka �Mundka	. .. . ; �24.92003�' �17 6 2005 25 2 1997 21 3 2003
	5�	�Mundka	1762005

¶54

4 � It M ay be highlighted that the notificatioh atseril No 2 hereinabove, pertaining to village Bakkarwala, is the same pursuant whereto lands were acquired in the revenue estateof

¶55

)^{Village Mundka, as per serial No 5 above} 5 � Abutting NH-lU, leading from the city of Delhi to the township of Rohtak , in the State of Haryana, are villages Mundka, Ghevra and Tikr: Kalan �Village �Bakkarwala lies towards te other 'side of �he Southern boundary of village Mundka �The I difference between the topology of the two villages is �whereas the �land �of �village �Mundka �abuts �NH-lU, �that �of village . Bakkarwala does not so abut �being on the other side of the Southern boundary of revenue estate of village Mundk

¶56

6 � As we proceed from the city of. Delhi to the towhship of Rohtak, village Nundka is crossed first, followed by village Ghevra and then village Tikri Kalan

¶57

7 �Agricultural �lands i nr,village �Mundka �wereacquired LAAPP734/2005&conflected

¶58

Page5Ofl9

¶59

¶60

t3

notification dated 17 6 2005 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act as per Award No 13/2006-07

¶65

8 Agncultural lands in the revenue estate & villagLe Bakkarwala were acquired pursuant to a notification dated 24 9 2003 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act a per Award No 3/2004-05 Further lands in the revenue estate of I^{the same village were acquired pursuant to a notificatiOn dated} 17 6 2q05 (the same notification ukder which lands in village Mundka were acquired) as per award No 1/200607

¶66

v^p

¶67

9 In a nut shell, the Land Acquisition Collector determined the fair market vaue of the acquired lands, under all the awards, with reference to the minimum price for agricultural ' and asnotified by the Government of NCT Delhi

¶68

10 For 'clarity I may note that pertaining t � the notification dated 25 2 1997 under which agricultural lands in fk i n nci-mi-n rf ,iIirtc Mi irr1it rrii rirr1 1 - hp I sm

h I

/2-

!,, ,Govern ,ment of NCT De'hi �^{had fixed the} �^{miirnum value f} agricultural lands in Delhi I e � 1 4 1997 � but as against the Land Acquisition Collector depressing the price @^{11 5% for full one} year, adopting the percentage 11 5, decreased the value by only 34 days inasmuch as the date with reference whereto Goverrment had notified the minimum value was 1 4 1997 and the notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was I dated 25 2 ]997 � This was the value fixed for category A land and � for category � B. lands, � with � reference �^to � the �^{values for} j. category A land depressed the same by � 90,000/- 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}

¶76

acre

¶77

14 Pertainin � to the notifications dated 21 3 2003 and 24 .9.2601 , whereunder agricultural lands in villge Muçidka ,and village Bakkarwala' respectively were acquired, the Refernce Co'urt 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 9f 30 8 2005 � Using the said dates and the niinimum price notifid by the Government of NCT Delhi, � the � Referende � Court � adol3ted � the � principle � of � mean average � What the Reference Court did was to adopt the value as of 14 2001 and increasing � he same by 10% per annum determined � the � enhanced � price � as � of � 21 3 2003 � as � also 24 9 2003 � Thereafter the � Reference Court took the value notif'ed as of 30 8 2005 and depressing the same by 10% per

¶78

notif'ed as of 30 8 2005 and depressing the same by 10% per j LA APP 784/2005 & connected I Page 8?of 19 -- l- � • •.•- I • - -. -.-.

¶79

. �^: �^• �^. �^. �^{. �.} �^. �

¶80

. �. �. �. �. �'; �... �..' �. �. �..

¶81

:.' �' ' �,: �• �'

¶82

. . : . � •' .' , .. � - . �^1, • � . .

¶83

?annum determined the sum arrved at as of 21 3 2OO �^s 24 9 2003 The two sums arrived at were added and divided by I two to arrive at the mean figure as of 21 3 2003, which I note t comes to 15,92,083 33 per acre (In some decisions I notethe s u m arrived at is 15,92,215/-Y For the date 24 9 2003 the [price determined w a si 20,41,000/- per acre

¶84

¶85

15 �^{Pertaining to the notification dated 17 6 2005} pursuant whereto agricultural lands were acquired in village t^{Bakkarwala and Muqdka the learned Reference Court adopted} the minimum price for agricultural lands notified by, the Governhient of NCT Delhi with effect from 1 4 2001 and giving mnuease @10%per annum determind the ialue nd with t respect to the lands in village Mundka, on account of locational. • �^{,advantge, being abutting NH-lU gave 5% more ançL} I^{determined the fair market value as of 17.6.2005,in} 4 sum of 21,37,017 75 per acre and for village Bakkarwala the pice determined wa,sj Z 20,35^, 255/-. per acre

¶86

16 �In t �aforesaid backdrop of the factual scenario in , twhich I have penred pr9filed the reasoning of the Land AcquIsition CoUector as also that of the Refererce Court, I delve flnto th9 arguments advanced before me during hearing today 17 �With re4ference to the evidence led in LAC No 384/2004 /ahina Vs UQI & Ors, it was urged by Sh LB Rai, . earnd counsel for the appellant in LA App No 784/2005, which argument was adopted by other learned counsel who appeared for, the other appellants, that the learned Tnal Judge wa not ustified in ignoring the sale deed Ex P-i whereunderl bJgh1

¶87

LAAPP784/2OO5&conriected

¶88

LAAPP784/2OO5&conriected Page9ofl9 • • • • • •-•: .•.• �•••. • • - .• • 4 •• �. �- • •'.. • .-: 4 ; - - � .. -..-. .4 � •.. � -- • -- �•• �•• �• :1- � '. ,•.- �.•.• . 1 �- . ••. •.•• � •• � .- � •. �^.• •i ' .-. I ' 41 I I I I t I- I 4 V I

¶89

. � ... � . � ... � ; �
.. � ••.• � : �.... � •... � '•;:.'•.•••;•

; �^•':

1a1nd � biwaof agricultural land in viNage Mundkawas 3d asof S. 8 t996for a sale considration of � 4,75,000/-38,00/- ws

¶95

.. . .. . �. � ,, � . P. ... � •• � • . �: �• -' � •. �^; �^.. �^{;.. �:} ipcurred towards sale çiuty and thus the price of the lançl would k

¶96

f �e � 5,13,OOO/-^{and calculated with reference thereto, land price} er bigha would come to � 4,46,000/- as of 5 8 1996 � Learned

¶97

cunsel woud urge that there is no reason not th hold that fair

¶98

market � ialue � of � agrictural � lands �ⁱⁿ �^village �^{Mund, ,kai, was} I,46,OOO/- per bigha as of � 8 1996 � Taking the argument

¶99

forward, lit IS urged that with reference to the said prFce, fair

¶100

market � value � needs � to � Se �determined �^as �^of �^25.2.199.3, 2.1.3.2003 and 17.6.2005, i e the dates when notifications under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act were issued � pursuant

¶101

• �^{vhereto agricultural lands were acquired in village Mundka, by} ircreasing the pnce progressively, if not by 12% per annum at least by 10% per annum �^{It is urged that on the same basis,} land pri'cf should � be determined for the agricultural � lands jn

¶102

vllage � Bakkarwala � Alternatively, �^{it was} �^{ucged �that since} villages - Tikri � Kalan, � 1undka �^{a n d Bakkarwala} �^are �^contiguous villages, � A and .. � in fact village Tiki ..: .. �^Kalan �^{is further towards tl?e} .. � ..

¶103

thwnshipof Rohtak, some increase be mde in the valu � of the lnd in village Mundka and Bakkarwala with reference to the judgment and decree dated 19 12 2008 deciding a batch of

¶104

¶105

Land � Acquisition � Appeals, �^lad �^matter �^being �^{LA �Appeal} No 193/2006 Pratap S,ncjh (Deceased) Thr LRs Vs 1)0/ as per ich fair market value of land, per bigha, was determined !fl

¶106

tle � revehue � estate �^{of village Ttkri} �^Kalan �^{as �of �16 11 1995,} 11 6 1996 and 17 12 2002 at � 2,15,164/- for category A land

¶107

. •. . LA tPP 784/2005 & connected Page 10 91 19 H 7 4 4 4 I 1 4 I

¶108

¶109

¶110

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

¶111

-..

¶112

.; �^fl ; ., .. . ... .. �.. �.. �,

¶113

... , :• : , .. �. .

¶114

ftth �^{pd Acquisition Act Learned c,ou,.P,'sel would concede} that tmt,sons gven'by the learned Reference court are n9t oiind �t: would urge that the two contentions advanced by . 1 •k ' • • i ,. . , , . . � . . � . � .' � ,, 1 1T �be considered by this Court as the reasons as to why ExP-1 benot taken as the basis to determine the fair market I '

¶115

)alue of lands in village Mundka and Bakkarwala �Thirdly ; learried counsel would further urge that the four sale deeds ExR-1 to R-4 referred to in the decision of the learned Reference Court pertaining to sale deeds dated 6 1 199, 305 199k 4 6 1997 and 8 9 1997 relied upon b UOI would how the actual market value of, the land and Ahus, learneçi coi!insel ould urge that the said four sale deeds should be corisidere41, but hastens to add, that since value reflected threin igr, , iless jhan.,the minimum price notified by the Goiernment, the pricefixation should be with reference to the rn iru m u mt price notified by the Government which is nearest to the point of time when the respectivel notifications were issued underection 4 of the Land Acquisition Act

¶116

20 �An independent and alternative argument is also d4anced by learned counsel for the Union The same rests itelf on a decision of a Divisidn Bench of this Court reported as 2006 (135) DLT 231 /aisingh Vs 1.101

¶117

1.The de'cision in /a! Singh's case (supra) concerns itself with the determination of the fair market value of land in villag

¶118

Balkarwala which we acquired pursuant to a notification datd 15 10 1993 at 1i,32,000/ per bigha Learned counsel woLld urge that the said decision has attained finality inasmuch

¶119

LA �AP 784/2005 & connecte d

¶120

I I - I - I 1 I I I I

¶121

Page 12 of 9

¶122

-.1 I I

¶123

as PIt �^{for Special Leave to Appeal filed before the Suprem} Cou4by either side have been dismissed Learned counse takes'the argumentforward by urging that by adopting the fair rnarket value of land in village Bakkarwala as of 1510 1993 at per, bigha, the fair market value should b ascertained by increasing the price progressively by 10% per annur to determine th �^{hiarket value of land in viilge} akkarwala as of 24 9 2003 asalso 17 6 2005 'Learned counsel would urge that inl.View of the locational advantage of villg Mundka, fair marketk value of land in village Mundka should be determined as of 25.2.1997, 21 3 2003 and 17 6 2005, by giving J : 5 OX 6 increase. - 22 With respët to the sale deed Ex P-i, whereunder I bigha and 3 biswa of agricultural land was sold in Village Mundka as of 5 8 196 it would assume importance that th sale is about 7 months prior to the date of the notification issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, which was issued or 25 2.1997. It is a matter of common knowledge that precedin the publication of a notification under Section 4 of t h e Lanc Acquisition Act, survey's are carried out with the object of determlining as to what lands, comprised in which khasra numbers a n d fields are required to be notified for t h e, proposed acquisition and: when this happën.-pople in the area-conie.td know that very soon thee 1 is every likelihood that the land

¶124

¶125

•: •. : •, • : • : . • . . � .. � . � .. � . : • � • ••• c j

¶126

¶127

¶128

nd1hus, t is not uncommon, forpersoflS to purchase aqu ired sTn&l paceIs of lands in areas where acquisitiqfls are likeIyto 7 take place, these transactions are speculative and cannot be taken to b �^{a represefltatlVe measure of the fair market value of} Ind as on, th �^{date of the sale�Further, the principles of ratio} nd �^propdrtion �^{as �alo �the �principles�of �averages�and �te} rinciples of sampling tel me that to be representative of the ihole, � a �^sample �^{must �bear at�intelligble�proportion�to �the} vhole �^{Thus, no} �^{for the reasoning advanced by the learned} eference Court,but for the twin reason ing hitherto-fore noted, I iold that Ex P-i cannot be good evFdence wherefrom market � There �^{an additippal} 'alue of the land could be determined eason not to rely upon theaid sale deed The sale deeds ER�^.9.1997 I to Ex.R-4, dated. 6J.1995, 30.5.1997, 4.6.1997 and are also pertaining to Village Mundka and reflect a sale price �^{In fact, t he} nuch lower than the sale price recorded in Ex P-i ale price in the said 4 sale deeds averages much less than , for agriculural land in peihi notified by even the minjmum price p the Government

¶129

I 23...Thus, the fair market value of the lands would be required to be fixed either with reference to th&decislofl of this PratapS/nc1/iCaSe^(supra) Court i nJjSIjgJ5case (supra) or I highlight that both decisions, penned by the Division 24 Bench o,f this Court have been upheld bythe Supreme Court The decision in fat SIng/75CaSe^{(supra) determined} j25 fair � market �^{value �of �land �in �Village �Bakkarwala�in �sun �of} 1,32,000I-^{per bigha as of 15 10 1993, and theperusal thereof}

¶130

1 � Page 14 of 19 LA APP 784/2005 & onnected :. .' �••• • �.................. • ., � ,. . ............... • s,.... I I I

¶131

wouId show that the Court assessed the fr market value pith reference tO sale deeds executed between the years 19O till

¶132

;the year 1996 either in Village Tikri Kalan or, Village 7M undka, L pparentiy on the premise that eing conpguous villagers, saI' price of agricultural land in the 2 adjoining villages would be Ind {IcatIve of fair market value of land 4in Villae Bakkarwala 26 In Pratap Singh's case (supra), the Division Bench was concerned with agricultural )ands in Tikri Kalan and another adjoining Village named Ghevra ,and pertaining to various

¶133

(notifications issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisitiorc Act determined the fair market value of agricultural lands in Village

¶134

1Tikri Kalan and Ghevra as under -

¶135

;

¶136

� - �- �7 -- --

¶137

.. � . �-- � . , �.. . . �. �. �,,. .. � . �' �^{; �. �. �t.; �. �'•} •

¶138

2 I � am � left �^with �^{the �notification�dted} a .^{�24 9 2003} pertalniDg to Village Bakkarwala arid with rference to the fair market value assessed in Chiranhl La/'s^{case, I would require to} , ppreciate �^{price by 10% per annum for a perod of 201 days} t I e � 2O,43,O76 80 pe thefiUe conS to �^{4,25,641/- per bigha} i cre, Whi 1^{ch I determihe to be the fair} market value of, land'in , Village Bakkarwala as of 24 9 2003

¶139

33 Accordingly, �th&^{appeals filed by the, Union of India} � The frequire to be dismissed and I hereby dismiss the same ppealsfiIed by the land owners and the cross-objections filed - by the land owners stands decreed as under

¶140

i) �For � the �^land �^{falling �in �Category�A 'land �in �Village} 1undka � the � Mir �^{market�value �is �fixed �at �is} i e �^{11,97,1621- per a(re and}

¶141

2,49,408 75 per bigha

¶142

for Category B lnds, the fair market value is fixed at i e �^{9,65,361 60 per acre, as}

¶143

2,01,117/- per bigha

¶144

on 25 02 1997 '1

¶145

For � the � land �^situated �^{in �Villge �Mundka �the �fai} market value is fixed at � 4,03,425I- per bigha � i e 19,36,410/- per, acre, �^{as on 21 03 2q03}

¶146

ni) � For � the �^land �^situated �^{in �Village �Mundka �the �fair} market value �^{is fixed at} �^{4,98,589/-�per bigha�ie} 23,93,227 20 pr acre, as on 17 06 2005

¶147

iv) �^{For the land situated in Village Bakkarwala thee fair} market value � is fixed at �^{4,98,589/- per bigha} � i e

¶148

LA APP 784/2005 &onnected Page 18 of 19

¶149

I I

¶150

t ) -- �. � - � -- -- -:-- �- I . . , ., �•. .. ��.. • �. . �. ,. .., : ��,... •.• �•• . '

¶151

I 23,93 227 20 per acre, as on 17 06 2005 For the land situated in Virlae Bakkatwaa th �fair :^{market value �is fixed �at �4}^4_25,641/-^{�_per bigha �i}^e 4 2O,43,O76 80 per acre, as on 24 09 2003 t I ¶ Appellants and cioss-objectors who have succeedd ,^{'ivould also be entitled to solatium and interest as per} statute and 'as clarified in the decision reported as 93(2001) �DLT �569 � Sunder � vs � (JO!, � for � the compensation, �paid �originally and as enhanced �by the Reference Court and finally on the sum enhaçiced by the present judgment ad decree 'The �appellants �and �cross-objectors �'ho �succeed would also be entitled to proportionate costs All pending applications stand disposed of in terms of the prayers made therein 01 (PRADEEPNANDRAJOG) JUDGE IV, 1Y 08, 2011 LA,APP.784/2005 &'connécted Page 19 of 19

¶152

¶153

• 4

¶154

Padam Kumar Vaid v. Union of India & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Padam Kumar Vaid 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.

Smt Bala Vs Union of India & Ors.

Krishna Janmotsav Samiti Punjabi Bagh Vs Ks Mehra & Ors.

Dayanand & Ors. Vs Union of India & Ors.