UOI v. Narain Singh & Ors

ORDER %

08.07.2011 For orders, see LA.APRNo. 784/2005.

PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, 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. . I * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHLAT NEW DELI -B Date of Dec/s/on:, 8th July, 2011 784/2005 JAMNA ... Appellant Thrbugh: Mr.LB.Rai, Advocate, Mr.l.S.Dahiya, Advocate, Mr.D.S.Lakra, Advocate, Mr.K.Sunil, Advocate, Mr.Anuj Bhandari, Advocate Mr.Shadarn Farashat, Advocate Versus . . . UOl & ORS . ... Respondeflt.S Through: Mr.Sanjay Poddar, Standing Counsel (LA), GNCT Delhi with Ms.Deepika,. Mr.Sachin Nawani and Mr. Siddharth Panda Advocates - Mr.Ajay Verma, Ms'.Kanika Agnihotri, Mr.Kunal Sharma, Mr.Surn.er Sethi, Mr.B.B.Sharma, Ms.Shobhna Takiar and Mr.Arun Birbal, Advocates forDDA AND + LA.APP. 879/2005, . LA.APP.' 88088112005, LA.APPc S 121/2006, 143/2007 (Relating to Notification u/s . 4 dated.

25.02.1997 & Award No.211999-2000, Village Mundka) + LA.APP. 583/2009, LA.APP. 603/2009, LAAPP. 604/2009, LA.APP. 606/2009, LA.APP. 610/2009, 74/2010, LA.APP 78/2010, LA.APP.784/2005 & connected Page lof 19 • T 1' r 7 , - : LAAPP 79/2010, LAAPP 121/2010, [$APP 122/2010, LAAPP 125/2010, LAAFP 164/20101 LAAPP 185/2010, LAAPP 18/2010, LA APP 200/2010, LAAPP 23812010, LAAPP 239/2010 LAAPP 243/2010, LAAPP 244/2010, LAAPP 245/2010, LAAPP 247/2010, LAAPP 251/2010, LAAPP ½ 252/2010, LAAPP 266/2010, LAAPP 267/2010, LAAPP 273/2010, LAAPP 274/2010, LAAPP 27572010, LAAPP 312/2010, LAAPP 3424/20lti LA APP 326/2010, LAAPP I 327/2010, LA APP 329/2010, LA APP 330/2010, LA APP 331/2010, LA APP 332/2010, LA APP 33312010 with C1V1 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 No20099/2010, LAAP1 374/2010, LAAPP 37512010, LAAPP 377/2010, LAAPP 37912010, LAAPP 423/2010, LAAPP 452/2010, LAAPP 461/2010, LAAPP 472/2010, LAAPP 694/2010, LA APP 696/2010 & CM APPL No 6340/2011 LA APP • 697/2010, LAAPP 698/2010 & CM APPL 1734/2011, LAAPP 706/2010 & CM APPL 17215/2010, LAAPP 707/2010, LAAPP 708/0101 LA APP 709/20101 LA APP 710/2010 with CM APPL No 2568/2011, LA APP 713/2010 with CM APPL No 7473/2010, LAAPP 715/2010, LAAPP 717/2010, LAAPP 719/2010 7 LAAPP 766/2010, LAAPP 796/2010 1 LAAPP 797/2010 A:.APP4. S 798/2010, LAAPP 799/2010, LAAPP 818/2010, LAAPP 819/2010 LA APP 829/2010, LA APP 831/2010 & c41 APPL 955/2011, LA APP 832/2010, LA APP 833/2010 & C1 APPL 6392/2011, LAAPP 834/2010, LAAPP 842/2010, LAAPR 871/2010, LAAPP 874/2010, LAAPP 875/2010, LAAPP 87612010, LAAPP 877/2010, LAAPP 878/2010, LAAPP 879/2010, LA APP 880/2010 1 LA APP 881/2010 & CM S APPL6505/2011, LA APP 882/2010, LA APP 883/?010LA APP 884/2010, LAAPP 886/2010, LAAPP 88812010, WAAPP 889/2010 & CM APPL2249/2011, LAAPP 890/2010, LAAPP 893/2010 & CM APPL 6750/2011, LAAPP 894/201 & CM No 23353/2010, LAAPP 895/2010, LAAPP 896/2010,LAAPP 897/2010 & CM APPL728/2011, LAAPP 903/20101 LAAPP LA APP 784/2005 & connected Page 2f 19 • . . • • • . .. it • (Relating to Notification u/s 4 dated 17 06 2005 & Award No 13/2006-07, Viilage-Mundka) AND + LA APP 40/2 009 & Cross Objections, LA APP 426/2009, LAAPP 428/2009, 442/20'D9, LAAPP 611/2009, LAAPP 616/20091 LA APP 278/2010 (Relating to Notification u/s 4 dated 24 09 2003 & Award No 3/2004-05, Village-Bakkarwala) AND + LAAPP 1029/2010 & CM No 5948/2011, LAAPP 1030/2010, LA APP 1031/2010, LA APP 1033/2010 & CM O No6645/2011, LAAPP 1062/2010, 1063/2010 & j5943/20ll, LA APP 1064/2010, LA APP 1066/201 , LA APP 1067/201 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 Digest? • PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, I (Oral) 1 I am deciding the above captioned appeals and reIatable civil miscellaneous applications which are by way of cross objections, all of which have been listed hereinabove LA APP 784/2005 & connected k .. . .. . ....... . .... . . : . :. • •• .--.•-.7 .- Government of NCT Delhi had fixed the m inimum value for agricultural lands in Delhi i e 1 4 1997, but as against te Lance Acquisition Collector depressingthe 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 Government had notified the minimum value was 1 4 1997 a n di .

te 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 the values for category A land depressed the same by 90,000I-per acre Thus, for category , A lands the Reference Court determned the fair market value @ 9,89,288/- per acre and for category B land the same was determined @ 8,99,288/- p e r acre Pertaining to the notifications dated 21 3 2003 and 24 9 2003 whereunder agricultural lands in village Mundka and village Bakkarwa!a respectively were acquired, the Reference Court took note of the fact that after the Government had notified the minimum rates for agricultjral lands in Delhi as of 14 2001 the next revision was as of 30 8 2005 Using the said dates and the minimum price notified by the Government of NCT Delhi, the . Reference Court adopted, the principle of':'meah • ." 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 21.12003 2003 as also 24 9 2003 Thereafter the Reference Court took the value notified as of 30 8 2005and depressing the same by, 10 0/0 per LA APP 784/2005 & connected .1'. I . ' •'. . . .. .. .,. ..., . -- , . . . annum Aetermined the sum arrived at as of 21 3 2003 as also 24 9 2003 1he two sums arrived at were added and divided by two to arrive at the mean fi9ure as of 21 3 2003, which I note comes to 15,92,083 33 pier acre (In some decisions I note the sum rrived 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 village Bakkarwala and Mundka the learned Reference Court adopted the minmum price for agricultural lands notified by. the Government of NCT Delhi with effect from 1 4 2001 a,nd giving increase @10% per annum determined the value and with respect to the lands in village Mundka, on account of locational advantage, being abutting NH-lU gave 5% more and determined the fair market value as of 17 6 2005 in sum of 21,37,017 75 per acre and for village Bakkarwala the price determined was 20,35,255I-per acre 16 In the aforesaid backdrop of the factual scenario in which I have penned profiled the reasoning of the Land Acquisition Collector as also that of the Reference Court, I delve into the arguments advanced before me during hearing today 17 With reference to the evidence led in LAC No 384/2004 /amna Vs UQI & Ors, it was urged by Sh LB Rai, learned counsel for the aooellant in LA Aoo No 784/2005 which 6nd 3 biswa of agricultural land in village Mundka was s6ld as of 5 8 1996 for a sale consideration of 4,75,000/- 38,000I-was incurred towards sale duty and thus the price of the land would be'Z 5,13,000/- and calculated with reference thereto, Fand price per bigha would come to 4,46,000/- as of 5 8 1996 Learned counsel would urge that there is no reason not to hold that fair market value of agricultural lands in village Mundka was 4,461000/- per bigha as of 5 8 1996 Taking the argument forward, it is urged that with reference to the said price, fair market value needs to be determined as of 25 2.1903 4 1. 21 3 2003 and 17 6 2005, e the dates when notifications under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act were issued pursuant whereto agricultural lands were acquired in village Mundka, by increasing the price progressively, if not byj 12% per annum at 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 contiguous villages, and in fact village Tikri Kalan is further , towards the township of Rohtak, some increase be made in the value of the land in village Mundka and Bakkarwak with reference to the judgment and decree dated 19 12 2008 deciding a batch of • Land Acquisition Appeals, lead matter being LA Appeal No 193/2006 Pratap Singh (Deceased) Thr LRs Vs 1101 as per which fair market value of land, per bigha, was determined in the revenue estate of village Tikri Kalan as of 16 11 1995, 11 6 1996 and 17 12 2002 at 2,15,164/- for category A land LA APP 784/2005 & connected C I-LJ:_i::±:±L - .-.---- . --------- Acquisition Appeal 1.io 4S9/2009, Chra pu La! vQpjQnLuii.diL& the fair market value of the Anr on 2 6 2011 I have determined lands in Viljage Ghevra at 4,03,425I-per bigha as of 6.2.20Q 1 . On the issue of comparabilitY of land in village BakkarWala with 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 vis-a-vls Ghevraafld Tikri IKalan a n d to that extent, qua said 2 villages, has an advantage Since exactness can never be achieved in the matters of assessing fair compens7 it is the broad probabil ities and ation similarities which matter Thus, I hold all 4 villages to be equivalent7 unless qua some land special features can be shown ' 28 Since the decision in Pratap Singh's case (supra) deals with notifications more proximate in point of time to the notifications with which I am concerned, I am of the opinion that it would be just, fair and proper to determine the fair market value of lands with which I am concerned in relation to the fair market value of lands determihed in Pratap 5inq5 case (supra) As per the decision in±rata 5inq case (supra) for the date m 24 7 1995, for Category A lands fair copensation assessed was 2,15,160!- per bigha and 1,73,500I-per bigha for Ctegory , 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 t e 5sLdays In (supra) theL7I7Ia/iI2aeaSe was determined Pratap 5inqh case to be 10% pei annum (flat) Thus, peaining to CategO A LA APP 784/2005 & connected the notification dated 21 3 2003, fair market value of land in Village Mundka should be 4,03,425/- i e 19,36,44O/- per acre, which I hereby fix .3 10. I propose to deal wttI the notification dated 24 9 2003, after dealing with the notification dated 17j6 2005 pursuant whereto agncultural lands were acquired in Village Mundka and Vil'age Bakkarwala As noted hereinabove, in Chirant' La/cáSe (supra), pertaining to the notification dated 6 2 2003, fair market value assessed by me was 4,03,425!- per bigha and thus, increasing

'1 $-182 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + LA.APP.1067/2010 UNION OF INDIA Appellant Through: Mr.Sanjay Poddar, Advocate with Ms.Deepika, Advocate versus NARAIN SINGH & ORS. Respondents Through: Mr.Arun Birbal, Advocate for DDA CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NAN DRAJOG