UOI v. Raj Singh & Anr

ORDER

01.02.2012 For orders see LA.App.No.115/2011,titled as Jai Prakash vs. Union ofIndia &Anr. FEBRUARY 01,2012 pkb ilL GAUR) JUDGE 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. • V .• >" mmM-: f.-' . .. fi- •• -'v- •i;-- a IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI ' Reserved on: Janiiar\> 12. 2011 Pronounced on: February 01. 2012 LA.APP. 115/2011(VILLAGEBAMNOLI) JAI PRAKASH Through: .....Appellant Mr.B.S.Maan,Mr./lmit Maan, Mr.R.S.Verma, Mr.Jai Prakash, Ms.Smita.Maan and Mr.Jitin Tewathia,Advocates(R-14-16,22, 30, 34, 38-45,51-53) ; Mr.Mohinder Singh Charak, Advocate for appellantinR-112 and respondentin R-63 | Mr.B.D.Sharma, Mr.S.K.Rout, Mf.B.K.Routray,Mr.VinayKumar,Advocates in(R-84to 86, 88-102, 104) Mr.S.K.Routand Mr.B.K.Routray,Advocates (inR-74 and for respondentonR-79) versus SfDIA&ANR. Respondents .'.hrough: Mr.Sanjay Poddar, Senior Advocate with Mr.Sanjay'Pathalc,Ms.NavlinSwain, Ms.K.K.Kiranand Mr.S.N.Pandey,Advocates forUOI Mr. Yeeshu J^iin,Advocate for UOI (R-1 to 5, 18-37,47, 49, 50-52,55-73,75-81, 113-123 ;j Mr.ArunBirbal,Mr.BanlceyBihariSharma, Ms.AmitaSingh,Mr.S.K.Sethiand Mr.Kunal; Sharma,Advocates'forDDA in (R-74-77& '• 80) ,i Mr.MohinderSingh-Charak,Advocate(R-63' and 112) UNION OF r LA.APP. 16/2011 LA.APP. 19/2011 LA.APP. 22/2 LA.APP. 90/2 LA.APP. 93/2 Oil Oil. Oil AND LA.APP. 17/2011 LA.APP. 20/2011 LA.APP. 23/2011 LA.APP. 91/2011 LA.APP. 94/2011 A.App. No. 115/2011& ccnnectedAppealsofVillageBamnoli f ' i LA.APP. 18/2011 LA:AP3p.21/2011 LA.APP. 24/2011 LA.APP. 92/2011 LA.APP. 95/2011 " I ' I r,:f. f' ii'' I; !i.' •• lii • !?. -o. LA.APP. ^LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. la:app. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. 'LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.App. LA.App. LA.App. LA.App. 115/2011 167/2011 72011 17|/2011 178/2011 186/2011 192/2011 204/2011 207/2011 210/2011 26^2011 275/2011 293/2011 304/2011 307/2011 310/2011 313/2011 316/2011 319/2011 325/2011 355/ioil 364/ 492/ 495/ 499/ '2011 2011 2011 2011 2011 503/2011 506/2011 513/2011 573/2011 576/2011 592/2011 196/2011 280/2011 283/ioil 287/2011 LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. -LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP; LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.App. LA.App. LA.App. LA.App. 133/2011 168/2011 172/2011 175/2011 179/2011 187/2011 193/2011 205/2011 208/2011 211/2011 264/2011 276/2011 295/2011 305/2011 308/2011 311/2011 314/2011 317/2011 320/2011 352/2011 356/2011 359/2011 490/2011 493/2011 497/2011 501/2011 504/2011 507/2011 524/2011 574/2011 577/2011 645/2011 278/2011 281/2011 284/2011 . 288/2011 LA.APP. 166/2011 LA.APP. 170/2011 LA.APP. 173/2011 • LA.APP. 176/2011 LA.APP. 183/2011 LA.APP. 189/2011 LA.APP; 1^4/2011 , LA.App. 206/2011 LA.APP. 209/2011 LA.APP. 260/2011 . LA.APP. 266/2011 LA.APP. 286/2011 LA.APP. 303/2011 LA.APP. 306/2011 , LA.APP. 309/2011 LA.APP. 312/2011 LA.APP. 315/2011 LA.APP. 318/2011 LA.APP. 321/2011 ^ LA.APP. 354/2011 LA.APP: 357/2011 LA.APP. 363/2011 LA.APP. 491/2011 LA.APP. 494/2011 LA.APP. 498/2011 LA.APP. 502/2011 LA.APP. 505/2011 LA.APP. 512/2011 LA.APP. 533/2011 LA.APP. 575/2011 LA.APP. 590/2011 LA.APP. 638/2011 LA.App. 279/2011 LA.App.282/2011 ^ LA.App. 285/2011 LA.APP. 184/2011 & C.M.No. 10953/2011 (Cross-objection) (Relatingto NotificationNo.9(50)/2004/L&B/LA/13211of 64.11.2004' Section4ofthe LandAcquisitionAct, 1894& AwardNo.; 1/2007-2008of06.08.2008,VillageBamnoli,NewDelhi) ' ,: ^/AJArp,..No. 115/2011&connectedAppealsofVillageBamnoli > % CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL 'GAUR of about Planned De-v the Referenc the rate of ^17,45,000per acre with statutorybenefits,therefore,with I Df learned counsel for the parties, who were present at the g, these matters were heard together and are being Mjudicated upon by this common order!

¶2LandAcquisitionCollectorwhilerelyinguponthe indicativeprice fixed by Go^^emmentof NCT of Delhi for agriculturalland in Delhi for the periodin question,had determinedthe marketvalue ofthe acquired land in questionat the aforesaidrate of^15,70,000/-per acre ofleveled land in Bloc meter, i.e., E ^14,13,000/-

¶3the consent final hearin had prepared LA.App.No. 115/2011 & c ORD'ER 01,02.2012 'I

¶1Above;captionedappealsand cross-objectionsrelateto acquisition 30 bighas of land in Village Bamnoli, Delhi notified;for elopmentof Delhi vide Notificationof 4^*" November,2004 Ii under tl|e Land AcquisitionAct, 1894 and since the impugnedorder,of e Court in these appeals uniformlygrants compensation'at c A, whereas for the acquiredland excavatedbeyond one lock B land, compensationw^s determinedat the rate of per acre. ; Not satisfied with the aforesaid Award of Land Acquisition Collector,before the Reference Court, appellants/claimantshad relied I upon Notification,of 24^'' October, 1994issued by the Municipal . ' ' i Corporationjof Delhi declaring the land in 20 villages including the instant village to be urbanized. Reliance was also placed upon Notificationpf 16'^ October, 2000 declaringchange of land use of the acquired land in questionand thereupon,Delhi DevelopmentAuthority ZonalDevelopmentPlan for DwarkaSub City in Dv^^arl^, onnected Appeals of Village Bamnoli Pages of 15 , I \ "T I V' New Delhi.

¶4While relying upon seven sale instances(Ex;PW-l/7to Ex.PW- , 1/13)ofthe year 1999,relatingto agriculturallandin VillagePochanpur purchased by a religious society —Radha Swami Satsang, Beas, and certifiedcopy of Sale Deed of 27''' September,2004 (Ex.PW-1/14);^f VillageBharthal,enhancementin compensationwas sought. Reference Court upon evaluationof the evidence on record concludedthat there was no evidenceto the effectthat,location,potentialand utilityofthe •land in the VillagesofBharthal,Pochanpurand Bamnoliis similarand I . • V had chosen riot to rely upon the aforesaid sale instances as the Sale I mstance of this very village was available.

¶5In the absence of the evidence of the Vendor/Vendeeof the aforesaidsale instances,Reference Court had discardedthe aforesaid reliedupon by the appellants/claimants,whileadvertingto 29 ofthe Apex Courtdecisionin Lai Chandra. Union 6f nr., (2009) 15 SCC 769. Before dealing with the sale R-I and Ex.R-II)ofVillageBamnoli,ReferenceCourthad refused to apply Delhi DevelopmentAuthority auction rate for the comanercialplots or the scheduleof market rates for Vasant Vihar by placing implicitrelianceupon the Apex Court decision in Lai Chand (supra) to hold that market price for' the developed land cannot be applied while determining the market price of the undeveloped agriculturalland in Delhi. • • !i f

¶6To fortifythe aforesaidfinding, ReferenceCourt has extensiveh^ quotedthe passagesfrom the Apex Courtdecisionin LaiChand(supra) had proceededto discardheavilyreliedupon instanceof

4.5 acres of the acquired land by Delhi Developmen; e PowerDepartmentofgovernmentofNCT ofDelhi for sale instances paragraph no: India and A instances(Ex and thereafter, allotment of Authority to th LA.App.No. 115/2011& connectedAppealsofVillageBamnoli Page 4 of Ifi constmctio holding as n of 715 Mega Watt Gas Based Power Plant/Project,while under:- I "77. ?2P The allotmentof1.5hectareoflandfor apremiumof . ''.42 lakh per acre is an inter departmentalallotment. ' •Buye^r and seller both are agencies of state. Since no development/constructioncan take place on the land in questionwithoutpermissionofDDA in view ofSection 12 of tl^e Delhi Development"'Act, 1957 determination of ' premiumfor allotmentoflandin developmentarea Is not an ordinarysale betweenaprudentbuyerandseller.Premium ofldridin such an allotmentcannot be called the market pricey of land which a prospectivebuyer of similar land sittingin his armchairwouldbe willingtopay. \ Moreover,there is a tirrtegap ofthreeyears between of Notificationunder Section 4 of LA Act which is .2004 and date of allotment which is 25.11.2007. Marketprice ofland allottedafter 3years ofNotification under Section 4 of LA. Act cannot be taken into considerationfor determiningmarketvalue on the date of NotificationunderSection 4. As per Section24 ofLA Act, the Courtshallnot take into considerationany increaseto the valueofthe landacquiredlikelyto accruefrom the use to whichit will beput when required. '

¶78date

04.11

¶7On the aspectofthe acquiredlandbeingdeclaredurbanizedand of being in the developmentzone,tiie pertinentfindings returnedby the Reference Court are as under "94. in ur contin Notifii Landofpetitioneris agriculturallandalthoughit is mnized area and in developmentzone. The land ued to be agriculturalland even till issuance of zation under Section 4 of LA Act in the year 2004 would show that in spite of being in capital of country having explosive population, no •, residential colony, approvedor unapprovedcame up on the land in question and it would negatepossibilityofland in questionhaving potentialfor buildingsiteeven in nearfuture. I [

¶95The petitionerhas broughtno evidence, leave aside documentaryevidencethat the acquiredland was suitable LA.App.No. 1]5/20n &. connectedAppealsofVillageBamnoli for putt or indu activity a decaa

¶8On the ail four sides Siras. Noticin DDA is deve' rates for agrici October, 2000 Delhi has not true potential ( the Apex Cou Rajflq Saheb, ( contend that i cannot be trea value.

¶10Aforesaidcontentionis noticedfor beingoutrightlyrejectedas the ing up buildings, be they residential or conirn'ercial strial as the case may be. There is no building startedon the landin questioneven afterpassingof \ e since area was urbanized. " • question of potentiality of the acquired land, Reference Court has takennote of the fact thatthis acquiredland is surroundedon by Villages - Bharthal, Bijwasan, Pochanpurand Dhul i I that acquiredland is in the vicinity of Dwarka, where oping colonies and therefore, adoption of the minimum ilturalland fixedby the GovernmentofDelhi by the Land AcquisitionCollectorwas not justified.Upon consideringthe two sale instancesof 25'^^ October,2004 (Ex.R-1)and of 20^'^ April, 2004 (Ex.R-2) of this ver}' village.ReferenceCourt,had discardedthe sale instance (Ex.R-2) as sale considerationof ^9,02,496per acre was found to be depressed and had chosen to rely upon the sale instance (Ex.R-1) depicting sak consideration of ?17,45,108 which was found to be comparable." , , ' i

¶9In the instant appeals,it was vehementlyurged on behalfof the appellantsthat the effectofNotification,of24? October, 1994 declaring the acquired lands being fit for urbanizationand Notificationof 16^^ regarding the change of land use under the.Master Plan of been consideredby the ReferenceCourtto appreciatethe f the acquiredland. Reliancewas placedupon decisionof ] "t in SpecialLand AcquisitionOfficer& Am vs, MJL I 2011) 7 see 714, by learnedcounselfor the appellantsto 1 view of the aforesaidNotifications,the acquired land ed as an agricultural land for determination of its marked LA.App."No. 115/2011 & connectedAppealsofVillageBarrinoli Page 6 of IS IV r acquiredlands may not to be termed as agriculturalland but they were certainlyundeveloped.Government'sminimimrates for the agricultural ! e to Delhi have been rightly discarded by the-PLeference iance placed upon M.K, Rafiq Saheb (supra), is clearly the Reference Court has determined the market value ,cf the acquiredlandwhilerelyingupon,asaleexemplarofthis very village.

¶11There is no questionof discardingthe aforesaid.NotificEitions.In fact, inspiteofthe aforesaidNotificationsno' developmentactivitywas there on the acquiredlands as no permissionwas soughtby the ov/ners ofthe acquiredlandsunderDelhiDevelopmentAct and therefore,itcan be safely concludedthat the acquiredlands were undevelopedand the same could not be comparedwith developedlands for determiningthe marketvalue of the acquiredland. Thus, relianceplacedby appellant's land applicab Court. So, re misplaced, as counsel upon UdhoDass vs. StateofMaryana & Ors., 2010 (9) SCALE 41 is of no avail.

¶12Rejectic Sector 20 and n of auction rates of Delhi DeveloprhentAuthority, in 22 of Dwarka, by the Reference Court, is assailed by learnedcounselfor the appellantsby contendingthatthe acquiredland is fully comparable with the aforesaid land and is in proximity and ' ' ' ' therefore,the iparketvalueofthe acquiredlandoughtto have been fixed t • I with referenceto the auctionrates ofthe Delhi DevelopmentAuthority! I I ReferenceCourthas not only relieduponthe decisionofApex Courtin Lai Chand vs. Union ofIndia and Ann, (2009) 15' SCC 769 but has extensively quoted j^elevant passages therefrom to hold that the sal^ , considerationof the developedlands cannot be appliedto the acquired lands which are undisputedlyundeveloped. At the hearing in thesej appeals, learned counsel for the a|3pellant could not distinguish the Apex Court in Lai Chand(supra),whose ratio squarely decision of the •• LA.App. No. 115/2011 & con nected Appeals of Village Bamnoli applies to the instantcases. Therefore,I find that the ReferenceCourt has rightlyrefiisedto applyDelhiDevelopmentAuthorityauctionratel for determiningthe marketvalueofthe acquiredland. '

¶13Whilereiteratingthe well settledprincipleoflawthatcompamble sale instances/are the best piece of evidenceto be consideredby the Court for the purposeofdeterminingthe compensation,Apex Court ir. Its recent decisionin 'RadhaMudaliyar Vs. SpecialTahsildar(Land Acquisition Tamil Nadu Housing Board) (2010) 13 SCC 384 has| observed as under:- '

¶13Comparablesalesinstancesare the safestmethoHfor determining^the marketvalue ofthe acquiredland and as laid dow should s genuine executed notificati n in ShajiKuriakosev. Indian Oil Corpn. Ltd it 2tisfy the factors, inter alia (I) the sale must he transaction; (2) the sale deed must have been at the timeproximateto the date of issuanceof on underSection4ofthe Act; (3) the landcovered ./ ^ ^ J. . I 7 •< • y:/ , •' "tci twAtu uuverea by the sale must be in the vicinityofthe acquiredland; (4) the land land and becompa coveredby thesale must be similarto the acquired •(5) size oftheplotofthe landcoveredby the sale 1 iS ^^quired land The sales instances shouldpr^eferablybe closestto the date ofnotificationas then alone it wouldsatisfythe touchstoneoftheprinciples contemplatedunder Section 23 of ihe Act, as held in .KanwarSinghvj. UnionofIndia:"

¶14Fixationofthe marlietvalue ofthe acquiredland on the basis of the saleinstances(Ex.PW-1/7to Ex.PW-1/14)ofthe adjoiningvillages,' as sought by the appellantsstands rightly rejected by the Reference' Courtas tlie sale instancesofthis very villageare available.When it is so, then there is no need to look for the sale instancesofthe adjoining villages. .15. On the aforesaidreasoning,adoptionofthe L&DO ratesto fix the marketvalueofthe acquiredlands soughtby the appellantsis outrightly £.nts counsel had relied upon decision of the Apex rejected. Appelk i,^.App.No.115/2011&connectedAppealsofVillageBamnoii Court in Kiran Tandon vs, AllahabadDevelopmentAuthority,(2004) 10 see 745 and in Valliyammalahd Anr vs; Special Tehsildar(Land ind Am., AIR 2011 SC 2937 to assert that deduction of developmentchargeswas improperand where large ar^a, Acquisition) • 40% towards not fully developed,is acquired,normally, deductionof about 33% i's permissible. obviated in vi 'he need to look for sale instances in the vicinity is ew of the fact that the sale instancesofthe instantvillage are availableand sq the requirementofconsideringthe applicabilityof f the sale instar sale instance ices (Ex.PW-1/7to Ex.PW-1/14)would arise only when (Ex.R-1) is found to be not comparable. Therefore, referenceto the aforesaiddecisionsby learnedcounselfor the appellant^ is of no consequence. •

¶16During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the appellants had stronglyrsliedupon the instanceof allotmentof 14.5 hectares (37 acres approximately)by Delhi DevelopmentAuthority to the Power Departmentof'DelhiGovernmenton leaseholdbasis at a considerELtiori per acre with 2.5% annual ground rent to claim •of t297.42 Ic enhancementcfcompensationat the rate of^40 lacsper acre over and abovethe marketvalue fixed by the.ReferenceCourtas the allotmentof the aforesaidland was out ofthe acquiredland. With much vehemence' ! • . '' It was asserted by learned counsel for the appellantsthat the aforesaid' allotment is clearly comparable and therefore, on its basis the compensationj)ughtto be enhancedwhile treatingthe acquiredland to be at par with the aforesaid land allotted to Power Department of Government of Delhi. -

¶17To meet the aforesaidstand ofthe appellants,it was jjointedout' by learnedsenjor counsel for the Respondentsthat aforesaidallotment! by Delhi Deve opmentAuthorityto Power DepartmentofGovernment ..4-Ap,No. 115/2011 & con:nectedAppealsof VillageBamnoli • r. -j-of Delhi was aforesaid land of Delhi in Fe of November, intervening ga

¶18Thefac acquired lands made in November, 2007 and the possession of the r. I was handedoverto the PowerDepartmentof Government br^ary,2008 and the acquisitio};!ofthe land in questionis 2004 and during the interveningperiod land rates had steadilyincreased and therefore,aforesaidallotmentcannotbe made the basis to determine the market value of the acquired land as the ip is of three years. ' i j i;ors to be considered to determine the market value of the I as reiteratedby the Apex Courtin GeneralManager.,Oil I andNatural Gas CorporationLtdvs. RameshbhaiJivanbhaiPate!and Anr, (2008) SCC 745, are as under:- I I I "13. Primarily, the increase in landprices'depends on fourfac'iors: situationofthe land, natureofdevelopmentin surrouna^ingarea, availabilityoflandfor developmentin I the area^ and the demandfor land in the area. In rural | areas, unless there is any prospectofdevelopmentin the \ vicinity^, increase in prices would be slow, steady and ' gradual, withoutany suddenspurtsorjumps. On the other hand, in isfaster, is constr urbanorsemi-urbanareas, where the development wherethe demandforlandis high andwherethere uction activity,all around, the escalation in market pricf is at a much higherrate, as comparedto rural areas. In somepocketsin big cities, due to rapiddevelopmentand high de nand for land, the escalations in prices have touched even 30% to 50% or, more per year, during the nineties. •

¶14On the other extreme, in remote rural areas where there was no chance ofany developmentand hardly any buyers, tl^epricesstagnatedforyearsor rose marginallyat a nominhl rate of 1% or 2% per annum. There is thus a significaritdifferencein increasesin marketvalue oflands in urban/semi-urbanareasandincreasesin marketvalueof iherural areas. Therefore,ifthe increasein market urban/semi-urbanareas is about 10% to 15%per le corresponding increases in rural areas would at lands in value in annum, t, LA.App. No. 115/2011 Sc con lectedAppealsof VillageBamnoii ; Page 10 of If) <1 •7 • -x/ best be annum, nineties evidenc special any spt prices, the sam only aroundhalfof it;that, is about5% to 7.5%per This rule ofthumb refers to the general trend in the , to be adoptedin the absenceof clear and specific e relating to increase in prices. Where there are reasonsfor applyinga higher rate of increase, or 'cific evidence relating to the actual increase in ':hen the increaseto be appliedwoulddependupon

¶15Normally, recourse is • taken to the mode of determining the market value by providing appropriate escalationover theprovedmarketvalue ofnearbylands in previous years (as evidenced by sale transactions or acquisitions), where there is no evidence of any contemporaneous sale transactions or acquisitions of comparable lands in the neighbourhood.The said methodis reasonably safe where the. relied-on sale transactions/ acquisitionsprecede the subjectacquisitionby only a few years,^ that is uptofour tofiveyears. Beyondthat itmay be 3vm if it relatesto a neighbouringland. What may iable standardif the gap is only afew years) may unsafe and unreliablestandardwhere the gap is ^or example,for determiningthe marketvalue ofa •quired, in 1992, adopting the annual increase with referenceto a sale or acquisitionin 1970 or ay have many pitfalls. This is because, over the if years, the "rate" of annual increase may itself drastic change apart from the likelihood of ice of varyingperiods of stagnation in prices or spurts in prices affecting the very standard of unsafe, be a rei become larger, j land ac method 1980 m course ( undergo occurre) sudden increase

¶19Being niindfulofthe ratio ofthe decisionofthe Apex Court in ONGC (supra), I find that the instance of institutional allotment * ' • ' I (Ex.PW13/l)of the year 2007 heavily relied upon by the appellants I ' ' ' ' wouldnot be a usefulguideto determinethe marketvalue ofthe land in 'question, as the said allotmentwas made after a period of three years from the date ofacquisitionofthe land in question.It is so said because the sale exemplarofthe relevantperiodofthisveryvillagein questionis LA.App.No. 115/2011& connectedAppealsofVillageBamuoli-; I I ^ / f -J-available/Therefore, the aforesaid instance of allotment of land to the PowerDepartmentof GovernmentofDelhi has been rightlyrejectedby Court. I ^hat is required to be considered is whether the sale instance I (Ex.R-1)relieduponby the ReferenceCourtis acomparableinstancec|r , not. Undisputsdly,sale instance^XEx.Rrl:)is of this very villageand is of -4 whereas the land in question was acquired vide of November, 2004. Evidently, aforesaid sale instance I (Ex.R-1)is not only relevantbut is comparableas it has not been shown ,by the appellantsas to what are the distinguishingfeatureswhich would make itinapplicableto determinethe marketvalueofthe acquiredlands. the Reference

¶20Now w October, 20C Notification Finding of the exhibited no o A of Land a ';document is ReferenceCourtthat whenthe sale instance(Ex.R-1)was bjectionwas raisedby the claimantsand as per section51-cquisition Act, 1894, a •certified copy of a registered -cceptable in evidence/and since this document has been tenderedin e\idenceby the Respondents,the same can be read against I them, remains unimpeachable.

¶21However,to meet the aforesaidfindingof the ReferenceCourt, it was submittedby learnedcounselfor the appellantsthat opportunityto •lead rebuttalevidenceto show that sale.instarice(Ex.R-1),is not reliable of bona fide, aa application to lead rebuttal evidence was filed before the ReferenceCourtwhich was illegallyrejectedvide orderof 25"' August^ ! •2010 and therefore, this matter needs to be remanded back to the Reference Court to enable the appellants to 'lead rebuttal evidence to demolishaforesaidsale instance(Ex.R-1). '

¶22First of all, appellantsoughtto have objectedto the exhibitionof aforesaidsale instance(Ex.R-1).Havingnot done so, appellantshave tc consequences. Secondly, even if application of the face the lega LA.App. No. 115/2011& connectedAppealsof VillageBamnoli \ appellantsfor leading rebuttalevidencewas rejectedby Cpur^,nothi:^^had stoppedthem from niovingan applicationfor leading additionalevidencein the appeal to lead evidencein orderto demolish ance (Ex.R-1). Not only this, even during the courseiof ' I the sale ins ! I :he Reference hearing,nothingwas ui-gedto showas to how the sale instance(Ex.R-1) IS not genuin

¶23In the opinion that e/reliableor comparable.; light of the evidence on record, I am of the considered he ReferenceCourthas rightlyrelieduponthe saleinstance (Ex.R-1)to determinethe marketvalueoftheacquiredlands.Fmdingno mentmthe instantappealsof claimantsand cross-objectionby one If them,the same are dismissedwhileleavingthe partiesto beartheirov^ costs. 24; So far as appeals of the Respondentsare concerned,I find no substancein fhem, becausetlie determinationofthe marketvalue oftlie acquiredland by theReferenceCourthas been done whilerelyingupdn the sale instance (Ex.R-1) produced by the Respondentsthemselvek Regardingdoingawayofthe classificationofthe acquiredland into 'A' Block by the ReferenceCourt is concerned,1find that lion has areasonablebasis. That is to say, land witli top soil andthe lakdwithouttop soil camxotbe putatparas themarketvalue ofthe landwiftouttop soilis boundto be lesserthanthemarketvalueof thelandwithtop soil. i I ng the pnce differentiationbetween'A' categoryland and iand, my esteemed brother Pradeep Nandrajig,J., in a recentdecisioijin LA.App.No.266/2008,titledas JaiSingh&Ors. UnionofIndia&, Ors., renderedon 23"August2011, whilerelyingon' . jhe decisionof the DivisionBench of this court in GajraJSiMgh WonofIndia,2006(VI) AD Delhi 13, has heldas under:- block and 'B this classifica

¶25Endorsi 'B' category L'^.App.No.1)5/2011& connectedAppealsofVillageBamnoli: Page 13 of 1:5 "56. ip. GajrajSingh'scase (supra), thepricedifferential worked out was t25,000/-. per acre. I have noted kereinabove that the acquisition in Gajraj Singh's case pertaMedto the date 15.11.1996.In GajrajSingh's,case the pricefor Category 'A ' landdeterminedwas ^9,76,121/-per acre andfor Category 'B' land the price determinedwas ^9,51,121/-per acre and the price^ differentialcomes to about 2.5% with reference to the price of Category 'A' land.

¶57I hus hold that Gajraj Singh's case should be my guiding star for price differential in the instant cases as d thus1holdthat whereverCategory A Category Category 'C have to he differentiatedonprice, the ntiql should be 2.5%. " well an 'B' and differen

¶26Consequentially,the findingofthe ReferenceCourtregardingthe A categoryand 'B' categoryland beingsimilarlysituatedhavingsame potentialityand becausethey are acquiredfor the same publicpurjDose, i:ainedin the lightofthe aforesaidobservations.However, the Union of India, to seek a:doption of the minimum indicative-priceof agriculturalland in'Delhiwhile forgettingthat the Appellant-UOI itselfhas reliedupon the sale instance(Ex.R-1),merits rejection. I

¶27In viewofthe,afore-goingnarration,I find thatno substanceinthe , appeals filed Dy claimantsas well as in cross objectionof one of the claimantsand the same are dismissed. So fcir as the appeals filed by Union ofIndiaare concerned,the same are partlyallowedto the extent that the comipensationawarded by the Reference Court for the 'B]' category of l^nds (as noticed in the Award,of the Land Acquisition Collector)is reducedfrom^17,45,000peracreto ^17,01,375/-acre.

¶28Beforepartingthis order,I would like to bring on recordthat tlie cannot be sus the cl^hn of brevity of this order, is occasioned by the fact that the impugned judgment is v^ell consideredon facts and the law. Therefore,I have .>A.App.No.115/2011&coinectedAppealsofVillageBamnoli Pagel4of]15 J purposefully|iot adverted to the entire evidence on record:andth; relevant evidpnce, i.e. of the sale exemplars has been talcen into • ' • L • ' i 3yme m this order. ,; ' I ive captionedappeals and .cross-objectionare disposedof to the Registryto remitthe compensationamount,ifany' depositedby |thersidewith the RegistrarGeneralofthis Comi:,to tlie concernedReference Court. ' ' consideration

¶29The abc with direction February 01, 2012 pkb/rs NIlJ GAUR) JUDGE • I'<A.App.No. ]15/20]1&connectedAppealsofVillageBamnoli

0' H: % + % IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI LA.APP. 94/2011 UOI Through; versus RAJ SINGH & ANR Through: Reserved on: January 12. 2012 Pronounced on: February 01. 2012 Appellant Mr.SanjayPoddar, Senior Advocate with Mr.Sanjay Pathak, Ms.Navlin Swain, Ms.K.K.Kiran and Mr.S.N.Pandey, Advocates for UOI Mr. YeeshuJain, Advocate for UOI (R-1 to 5, 18-37, 47, 49, 50-52, 55-73, 75-81, 113-123 Mr.Arun Birbal, Mr.Banlcey Bihari Sharma, Ms.Amita Singh, Mr.S.K.Sethi and Mr.Kunal Sharma, Advocates forDDAin(R-74-77&80) Mr.MohinderSingh Charak,Advocate(R-63 and 112) Respondent Mr.B.S.Maan, Mr.Amit Maan, Mr.R.S.Verma, Mr.Jai Pralcash,Ms.Smita Maan and Mr.Jitin Tewathia, Advocates(R-14-16,22, 30, 34, 38-45, 51-53) Mr.MohinderSingh Chai-ak,Advocate for appellant in R-112 and respondent in R-63 Mr.B.D.Sharma, Mr.S.K.Rout, Mr.B.K.Routray, Mr.Vinay Kumar, Advocates in (R-84 to 86, 88-102, 104) Mr.S.K.Rout and Mr.B.K.Routray, Advocates (in R-74 and for respondent on R-79) CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR