UOI v. Rajender Singh & Anr

ORDER %

08.07.2011 CM No.6718/2010 There is a delay in filing the appeal. The delay is condoned. Application is allowed. LA.Ar. 374/2010 For orders, see LA.APP.No. 784/2005.

PRADEEP NAN DRAJOG, J. JULY 08, 2011 mm 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. / LAAPP 79/2010, LAAPP 121/2010, LAAPP 122/201Oj_A,APP 125/2010, LAPPP 164/2010, LAAPP 185/2010, 'LAAPP 186/?010, LA APP 200/2010, LAAPP 238/010, LAAPP 239/2010 LAAPP 243/2010, LAAPP 244/2010, LAAPP' 245/20101 LAAPP 247/2010, LAAPP 251/2010, LAAPP' 252/2010, LAAPP 266/2010, LAAPP 267/2010, LAAPP' 273/2010, LAAPP 274/2010, LAAPP 275/2010, LAAPP 312/2010, 324/2010, A APP EAAPP . 326/2010, LAAPP 327/2010 LAAPP 329/2010, LAAPP 330/2010, LAAPP' 331/2010, LA APP 332/2010, LA APP 333/2010 with CM APPL No 5524/2011, LAAPP 335/2010, LAAPP 367/2010, LAAPP 1 .368/2010, LA.A39 .Ap 37112010. & ç APP.L. No 20099/2010, LAAPP 374/2010 LAAPP 375/2010, LAAPP 377/2010, LAAPP 3 , LAAPP 423/2010, LAAPP 452/2010, LAAPP 461/2010, LAAPP 472/2010, LAAPP 694/2010, LA APP 696/2010 & CM APPL No 6340/20 11, LA APP 697/2010, LAAPP. 698/2010 & CM APPL; 1734/2011.,. LAAPPt 706/2010 & CM APPL 17215/2010, LA APP 707/210, LA APP 708/20 10 LA APP 709/2010, LA APP 710/2010 with1 CM APPL No 2568/2011, LA APP 713/2010 with CM APPL Nô 7473/2010, LA APP 715/2010, LA APP 717/2010, LA APP 719/2010, LAAPP 766/2010, LAAPP 796/2010 1 LAAPP 797/20jti, LAAPP 798/2010, LAAPP 799/2010, LAAPP 818/2010, LAAPP 819/2010 LA APP 829/2010, LA APP 831/2010 & CM APPL 955/2011, LAAPP 832/2b10, LAAPP 833/2010 & CM APPL 6392/20111 LAAPP 834'/2010, LAAPP 842/2010, LAAPP 871/2010 LA.APP. 74/2010, . LA.APP. .875/2010,

876/2010, LAAPP 877/2010, LAAPP 878/2010, LAAPP 879/2010, LA APP 880J2010, LA APP 881/2010 & CM APPL65O5/2011, LAAPP 882/2010, LAAPP 883/2010, LAAPP o 884/2010, LA.APP. 86/2010, •LAAPP. 88812010,. 'LA.APP! LAAPP' 889/2010 & CM APPL2249/2011, LAAPP 890/2010, 893/2010 & CM APPL 6750/2011, LA APP 894/2010 & CM No 23353/2010, LA APP 895/010, LA APP 896/2010, LA APP 897/2010 & CM APPL728/211, LAAPP 903/2010, LAAPP LA APP 784/2005 & connected / Government of NCT Delhi had fixed the minimum value for agricultural lands in Delhi J.e. 1 4 1997, but as against the Land Acqisition Collector depressing the price @ 11 5% for full one year, adopting the percentage vu 5, decreased the value by,

only 34 days inasmuch as the date with reference whereto Government had notified the minimum value was 1.41997 anc1 the notification under Section 4 of the I 1and Acquisition Act ws dated 25 2 1997 This was te value fixed for category A lands ancç for category B lands, with reference to the values for category A land depressed the same by 904,000I-per acre Thus, for category A lands the Reference Courf determined the fair market value @ Z9,89,288/ 7 per acre and for S category B land the same was determined @ 8,99,288I-e • p c •ré. . . . .. ... . . .. '. 14 Pertaining to the notifications dated 21 3 2003 and 24 9 2003 whereunder agricultural lands in village Mundka and village Bakkarwala respectively were acquired, the Reference Court took note of the fact that after the Government had notified the minimum rates for agricultural lands in Delhi as of 1 4 2001 the next revision was as of 30 8 2005 Using the said dates and the minimumprice notified by the Government of NC1I Delhi, the Reference Court adopted the principle of mear average What the Reference Court did was to adopt the value as of. 1 4 2001 and increasing the same by 10% per annum determined the enhanced price as of, 21 3 2003as also 24 9 2003 Thereafter the Reference Court took the value . .... of the Land Acquisition Act Learied counsel would concede hat the reasons given by te learned Reference Cqurt are pot bound, but would uge that the two contentions advanced by him should be considered by this Court as the reasons as to why,

............................................................................. I .. Ex P-i be not taken as th e basis to determine the fair market value of lands in village Mundka and Bakkarwala Thirdiy, learnd counsel would further urge that the four sale deeds Ex R-1 to R-4 referred to in the decision of the learned Reference Court pertaining to sale deeds date 6 1 1995, 30 5 1997, 4 6 1997 and 8 9 1997 relied upon by UOl would show the actual market value of the land and thus learned counsel would urge that the said four sale deeds should be S considered, but hastens to add, that since value reflected thrin ic icc fhn thp mintrnim rfififrJ by th would show that the Court assessed the fair mar1t valup, with referenceto sale deeds executqd between theyears 19O till the year 1996 either in Village Tikri Kalan or Vilagé l"1undk4, a5parently on the premise that being contiguous villagers, sa1 pric of agricultural land in the 2 adjoining villages woLId L indicative of fair market value of land in Village Bakkarwala

¶26In Pratap 5inh's case (supra), the D.ivision Bendi was concerned with agriciltural lands in Tikri Kalan and apothr adjoining Village named Ghevra and pertaining to v,riou notifications issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Adt determined the fair maçket value of agricultural lands in Village' Tikri Kalan and Ghevra as under - S. NO Date Village Price per Big ha 1 24 07 1995 & Tikri Kalan 2,15,160/- for Block 16 11 1995 A & 1,73,500/7 for Block B land 2 11 06 1996 - Tikri Kalan & 2,35,815/- for Block Ghevra A & 1,90,156/- for • .'. . . . . . . . . . . . : . .. Block B land 3 1712 2002 T;kri Kalan 4,02,850/- for Block A & 3,24,85O/- for • : . . • . . . • S . Block B land • • H H_

• . : • ; Following the judgment in Pra'ap Sincjh's case (supra) I have decided t h e fair market value for the land situated in revenue estate of Village Ghevra, which was acquired pusuan .to notification dated 6.2.2903..inthe batch of appeals being.Land S LA APP 784/2005 & connected Acquisition Appeal No 489/009, Ir!7IILPI v LTh/o/lofLfld/a& 2 6 2011 I have determined the fair markt value of the on lands in Village Ghevra at 4,Q3,425!- per bigha as of 6 2 2003 comparabilitY of land in village BakkarWala with On the issue of village Mundka, Ghevra and Tikri Kalan, it is no doubt true that whereas village BakkarWala does not abut NH-10, as do the other villages, but it has to be highlighted that it is more proximate to the urban areas of Delhi visa-viS Ghevra and Tikri Kalan and to that extent, qua said 2 villageS, has an advantage Since exactness can never be acheved in the matters of assessing fair compensations it is the broad probabilities and similarities which matter Thus, I hold all 4 villages to be S euivalent, unless qua some land special features can be s how n 28 Since the decision in PratapLRc1h' case (supra) dalSwith notifications more roxirnte in point of time to'th notifications with which I arn.concerned, lam of the opinion tht it would be jst, fair and proper to determine the fair marks value of lands with which I am concerned in relation to the fali market value of lands determined in Praap Sig case (supra) As per the decision in PratapiflghS case (supra) for the date 24 7 1995, for Category A lands fair compensation assessed was .

2,15,160I-per bigha and 1,73,500!- per bigha for Category B 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 I.e. 582da.yS. ñ ease was determifle Pratap Stngh's case (supra) the annI o be 10% pr annum (flat); ThUS, pertaining to Category A. Page 16°f19 LAApp784/2005&connected lands, the fair market value assessed is 2,49,408 75 per bigha I e Z11,97,162/- per acre and for Category B lan I ds, assess the fair market value at 2,01,117/- per, bigha i e 9,65,361 60 per.

acre The next notification with which I am concrnedj dated 21 32003 pertaining to Village Mundka In Chiranti La/'sl cas (supra), with reference to the decision in Pratap Singh's case

(supa), for agricuftural Jands in Village Gheyra pertaining to a notification issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act on 6 2 2003, the fair market value assessed was 4 703,425I-per. bigha This was uniformly applied Since there is a time gap of just a little over 1 month, I am of the opinion that pertaining to the notification dated 21 3 2003, fair market value of land in Village Mundka should be Z 4 1 03,425I-L e 19,36,440/- per acre,t which I hereby fix I propose to deal with the notifiction dated 24 9 2003, after dealing with the notification dated 17 6 2005 pursuant whereto agricultural lands were acquired in Village Mundka and Village Bakkarwala As noted hereinabove, in Chiranti Lal's case (supra)i pertaining to the notification dated 6 2 2003, fair market valuel , assessed by me was 4,03,425!- per bigha and thus, increasing the same by 10% for 2 years and 131 days, the figure comes to, 4,98,589/- per bigha, which comes to 23,93,227 20 per cre

$-62 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + LA.APP.374/2010 UOl Appellant Through: Ms.Deepika, Advocate versus RAJENDER SINGH & ANR. Respondents Through: None CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NAN DRAJOG