UOI v. Yogesh Kumar & Ors

ORDER

01.02.2012 For orderssee LA.App.No.115/2011,titledasJai Prakashvj'. UnionofIndia & Anr. FEBRUARY 01,2012 pkb tSUNIL 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. !S"' IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on: Januan' 12, 2011 Pronounced on: February 01, 2012 i I • ~ LA.APP.,115/2011(VILLAGEBAMWOLI) JAIPRAKASH Through: Appellant Mr.B.S.Maan, Mr.Amit Maan, Mr.R.S.Verma, MrJai Prakash, Ms.Smita Maan and MrJitin Tewathia,Advocates(R-14-16,22, 30,34, 38-45,51-53) Mr.Mohinder Singh Charak, 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:.andMr.B.K.Routray,Advocates (inR-74 arid-forrespondentonR-79) versus UNIONOF INDIA& ANR. Respondents Through: Mr.Sanjay Poddar, Senior Advocate with Mr.Sanjay Pathak, Ms.Navlin Swain, Ms.K.K.Kifan and Rir.S.N.Pandey, Advocates forUOI Mr. Yeeshu Jain, Advocate for UOI (R-1 to 5, 18-37,47, 49,50-52, 55-73,75-81,j113-123 Mr.Arun Birbal, Mr.Banlcey Bihari:Sharma, Ms.Amita Singh, Mr.S.K.Sethi and Mr.Kunal Sharma, Advocates for DDA in (R-74-77 & 80) Mr.Mohinder Singh Charak, Advocate (R-63 and 112) AND LA.APP. 16/2011 LA.APP. 17/2011 JA.APP. 18/7.011 LA.APP. 19/2011 LA.APP.20/2011 CLA.APP. 21/2011 LA.APP. 22/2011 LA.APP. 23/2011 LA.APP. 24/2011 LA.APP. 90/2011 LA.APP. 91/2011 , LA.APP. 92/2011 LA.APP. 93/2011 LA.APP. 94/2011 , LA.APP. 95/2011 I.A.App.No. 115/2011& connectedAppealsof VillageBamnoli II I/-' ,• r-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 171/2011 174/2011 178/2011 186/2011 192/2011 204/2011 207/2011 210/2011 263/2011 . 275/2011 293/2011 304/2011 307/2011 310/2011 313/2011 316/2011 319/2011 325/2011 355/2011 358/2011 364/2011 492/2011 495/2011 499/2011 503/2011 506/2011 513/2011 573/2011 576/2011 592/2011 196/2011 280/2011 283/2011 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: 194/2011 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.3Ij8/2011 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.Nd. 10953/2011 (Cross-objection) (Relatingto NotificationNo.9(50)/2004/L&B/LA/13211of 04.11.2004 issuedunderSection4ofthe LandAcquisitionAct, 1894& AwardNo. 1/2007-2008of06.08.2008,VillageBamnoli,NewDelhi) LA.App.No. 115/20U& connectedAppealsofVillageBamnoli CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR ORDER %

01.02.2012 A

¶1Abovecaptionedappealsand cross-objectionsrelateto acquisition of about 2100 bighas of land in Village Bamnoli, Delhi notified for PlannedDevelopmentofDelhi vide Notificationof 4^^ November,2004 under the LandAcquisitionAct, 1894 and since the impugnedorder of the ReferenceCourt in these appeals unifomilygrants compensationat the rate of ^17,45,000per acre with statutorybenefits,therefore,with the consentof learnedcounsel for the parties,who were presentat the final hearing, these matters were heard together and are being adjudicatedupon by this commonorder.

¶2LandAcquisitionCollectorwhilerelyinguponthe indicativeprice fixed by GovernmentofNCT 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 Block A, whereas for the acquiredland excavatedbeyond one meter, i.e., Block B land, compensationwas determinedat the rate of ^14,13,000/-per acre. ,

¶3Not satisfied with the aforesaid Award of Land Acquisition Collector, before the Reference Court, appellants/claimantshad relied upon Notification of 24^'' October, 1994 issued by the Municipal Corporationof Delhi declaring the land in 20 villages including the instant village to be urbanized. Reliance was also placed upon Notificationof 16^'' October, 2000 declaringchange of land use of the acquiredland in questionand thereupon,Delhi DevelopmentAuthority had preparedZonalDevelopmentPlan for DwarkaSub City in Dwarka, LA.App.No. 115/2011&connectedAppealsofVillageBamnoli Page3of15 New Delhi.

¶4While relying upon seven sale instances(Ex>W-l/7to Ex.PW-j 1/13)ofthe year 1999,relatingto agriculturalland,in VillagePochaiipur -purchased by a religious society-Radha Swami Satsang, Beas, and certifiedcopy of Sale Deed of 27^'^ September,2004 (Ex.PW-i/14)of VillageBharthal,enhancementin compensationwas sought. Reference Court upon evaluationof the evidence on record concludedthat there was no evidenceto the effectthat location,potentialand utilityof the land in the VillagesofBharthal,Pochanpurand Bamnoliis similarand had chosen not to rely upon the aforesaid sale instances as the Sale •instanceofthis very villagewas available.

¶5In the. absence of the evidence of the Vendor/Vendeeof the aforesaid sale instances,Reference Court had discardedthe aforesaid salemstancesreliedupon by the appellants/claimants,whileadvertingto paragraphno: 29 ofthe Apex Courtdecisionin LaiChandvs. Union of ^ India and Anr., (2009) 15 SCC 769. Before dealing with the sale mstances(Ex.R-1and Ex.R-11)ofVillageBamnoli,ReferenceCourthad refused to apply Delhi DevelopmentAuthority auction rate for the commercialplots or the scheduleof market rates for Vasant Vihar by placing implicitreliance upon the Apex Court decisionin Lai Chand (supra) to hold that market price for the developed land cannot be applied while determining the market price of the undeveloped agriculturallandinDelhi. ' " .

¶6To fortifythe aforesaidfinding,ReferenceCourt has extensively quotedthepassagesfromthe Apex Courtdecisionin LaiChand(supra) and thereafter,had proceededto discardheavilyreUedupon instanceof allot|nentof 14.5 acres of the acquired land by Delhi Development Authontyto the PowerDepaitmentofGovernmentofNCT ofDelhi for LA.App.No. 115/2011 connectedAppealsofVillageBamnoli p^gg4ofjg constructionof 715 Mega Watt Gas Based Power Plant/Projectjwhile holding as under:-

¶77The allotmentof1.5hectareoflandfor apremiumof ^297.42 lakh per acre is an inter departmentalallotment. Buyer and seller, both are agencies of state. Since no development/constructioncan take place on the land in questionwithoutpermissionofDDA 'In view ofSection12 of the Delhi Development Act, 1957 determination of premiumfor allotmentoflandin developmentarea isnotan ordinarysale betweenaprudentbuyerandseller.Premium of land in such an allotmentcannot be calledthe market price of land which a prospectivebuyer of similar land sittingin his armchairwouldbe willingtopay.

¶78Moreover,there is a timegap ofthreeyears between date of Notificationunder Section 4 of LA Act which is

04.11.2004 and date of allotment which is 25.11.2007.^ Marketprice ofland allottedafter 3years ofNotification under Section 4 of LA Act cannot be taken into consecrationfor detepniningmarket value 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 willbeput when required."

¶7On the aspectofthe acquiredlandbeingdeclaredurbanizedand of being in the developmentzone, the pertinentfindings returned by the Reference Court are as under:- "94. Landofpetitioneris agriculturallandalthoughit is in urbanized area and in developmentzone. The land continued to be agriculturalland even till issuance of Notificationunder Section 4 ofLA Act in the year 2004 would show that in spite of being in capital of countiy having explosive population, no residential colony, approvedor unapprovedcame up on the land in question - and it wouldnegatepossibilityofland in questionhaving potentialfor buildingsiteeven in nearfuture.

¶95The petitionerhas broughtno evidence, leave aside documentaryevidencethat the acquiredland was suitable , LA.App.No. 115/2011&connectedAppealsofVillageBamnoli Page5of15 forputtingup buildings,be they residentialorcommercial •or industrialas the case may be. There is no building activitystartedon the landin questioneven afterpassingof a decadesincearea was urbanized." . 8. On the question of potentialityof the acquired land, Reference Courthas takennote ofthe fact that this acquiredland is surroundedon all four sides by Villages-Bharthal, Bijwasan,Pochanpurand Dhul Siras. Noticingthat acquiredland is in the vicinityof Dwarka, where DDA IS developingcolonies and therefore, adoption of the minimum latesfor agriculturalland fixed by the GovernmentofDelhi'bythe Land AcquisitionCollectorwas not justified.Upon consideringtlie two sale instancesof25'" October,2004 (Ex.R-1)and of20"' April,2004 (Ex.R-2) ofthis very village,ReferenceCourthad 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 sale considerationof ?17,45,108 which was found to be comparable.'

¶9In the instantappeals, it was vehementlyurged on behalfof the appellantsthatthe effectofNotification,of 24*'' October,1994 declaring the acquired lands being fit for urbanizationand Notificationof 16*'^ October,2000 regardingthe changeoflanduse underthe MasterPlan of Delhi has not been consideredby the ReferenceCourtto appreciatethe truepotentialofthe acquiredland. Reliancewas placedupon decisionof the Apex Court in SpecialLandAcquisitionOfficer& Anr ra. M.IL RafiqSaheb,(2011)7SCC 714, by learnedcounselfor the appellantsto contend that in view of the-aforesaidNotifications,the acquired land cannotbe treatedas an agriculturalland for determinationofits madcet value. • .10. Aforesaidcontentionis noticedfor beingoutrightlyrejectedas the LA.App.No. 115/201]&connectedAppealsofVillageBamnoli • Page6of 15 ^6 acquiredlands may not to be termed as agriculturalland but they were certainlyundeveloped.Govenunent'sminimumrates for the agricultural land applicableto Delhi have been rightly discardedby the Reference Court. So, relianceplaced upon M.K Rafiq Saheb (supra), is clearly misplaced,as the ReferenceCourt has determinedthe market value of the acquiredlandwhilerelyinguponasaleexemplarofthis veiyvillage,

¶11There is no questionof discardingthe,aforesaidNotifications.In fact, inspiteof the aforesaidNotificationsno developmentactivity'was there on the acquiredlands as no permissionwa:s soughtby the owners ofthe acquiredlandsunderDelhiDevelopmentAct and therefore,it can be safely concludedthat the acquiredlands were undevelopedand the same,could not be comparedwith developedlands for determiningthe marketvalue ofthe acquiredland. Thus, relianceplaced by appellant's counselupon UdhoDass vs. StateofHaryana&Ors., 2010 (9) SCALE 41 is of no avail.

¶12Rejectionof auction rates of Delhi DevelopmentAuthority, in Sector 20 and 22 of Dwarka, by the Reference Court, is assailed by learnedcounselfor the appellantsby contendingthatthe acquiredlandis fully comparable with the aforesaid land and is in proximity and therefore,the marketvalueofthe acquiredlandoughtto have been fixed with referenceto the auctionrates ofthe Delhi DevelopmentAuthority. ReferenceCourthas not onlyreliedupon the decisionofApex Courtin Lai Chand vs. Union ofIndia and Anr., (2009) 15 SCC 769 but has extensivelyquoted relevant passages therefrom to hold that the sale considerationof the developedlands cannot be appliedto the acquired lands which are undisputedlyundeveloped. At the hearing in these appeals, learned counsel for the appellant could not distinguishthe decisionofthe Apex Courtin Lai Chand(supra),whose ratio squarely tA.App.No. 115/2011&connectedAppealsofVillageBamnoli Page7of15 appliesto the instantcases, Tlterefore,Ifind tl,at tlte ReferenceCourt as ri,Myreusedto apptyDelhiDevelopmentAuthorityauctionrates for determmmgthemarketvalueofthe acquiredland. Whilereiteratingthe well settledprincipleofl.wthatcomparable «ale mstance,are the best piece of evidenceto be consideredby the Court for tire purposeofdete^iningthe compensation;Apex Courtin .s recentdec.s.onin RaUka MuaaUyar Vs. SpecQTaHsiUar(tan, Ac"n Tamil Nadu HousingBoard) (2010) 13 SCC 384 has observedas under:- - thefactors, inter alia (l) le siemu^ll • musflTL:. • notification t be iri the viciriit)'ofthe acquiredI'ar^d^a) tr:7.r' besnmiarto1 he J, P^°'°f ^''nd<:overed.bythe sale be comparableto theacquired land. The sales instances shouldpreferablybe closestto the date ofnotificationas then aloneit wouldsatisfythe touchstoneoftheprinciples kTI T I, ""tr ® in KanwarSinghvs. UnionofIndia."

¶14Fixationofthe marketvalueofthe acquiredland on the basis of the sale instances(Ex.PW-1/7to Ex.PW-1/14)ofthe adjoiningvillages, as sought by the appellants stands rightly rejected by the Reference Courtas the sale instancesofthis very villageare available.When it is •so, then there is no need to look for the sale instancesofthe adjoining villages.

¶15On the aforesaidreasoning,adoptionofthe L&DO ratesto fix the marketvalueofthe acquiredlandssoughtby the appellantsis outrightly rejected. Appellants'counsel had relied upon decision of the Apex LA.App.No. 115/2011&connectedAppealsOfVillageBamnoli Page8of15 Courtin Kiran Tandon vs. AllahabadDevelopmentAuthority,(2O04) 10 see 745 and in ValliyammalandAm vs. SpecialTehsildar(Land Acquisition)andAm., AIR 2011 SC 2937 to assert that deductionof 40% towardsdevelopmentchargeswas improperand where large area, not fully developed,is acquired,normally,deductionof about 33% is : permissible.The need to look for sale instances in the vicinity is obviatedin view ofthe fact that the sale instancesofthe instantvillage are availableand so the requirementof consideringthe applicabilityof the sale instances(Ex.PW-1/7to Ex.PW-l/f4)would arise only when sale instance (Ex.R-I) is found to .be not comparable. Therefore, referenceto the aforesaiddecisionsby learnedcounselfor the appellants ^•w is ofno consequence.

¶16During the course of hearing, leai'nedcounsel for the appellants had stronglyrelied upon the instanceof allotmentof 14.5 hectares(37 acres approximately)by Delhi DevelopmentAuthority to the Power DepartmentofDelhi Governmenton leaseholdbasis at aconsideration of t297.42 lacs per acre with 2.5% annual ground rent to claim enhancementofcompensationat the rate of^40 lacsper acre over and abovethe marketvaluefixed by tlieReferenceCourtas the allotmentof the aforesaidland was out ofthe acquiredland. With much vehemence, It was assertedby learned counsel for the appellantsthat the aforesaid allotment is clearly comparable and therefore, on its basis the compensationought to 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 pointedout by learnedseniorcounsel for the Respondentsthat aforesaidallotment by Delhi DevelopmentAuthorityto Power Departmentof Government LA.App.No. 115/201]&connectedAppealsofVillageBamnoli Page9of15 of Delhi was made in November, 2007 and the possession of the aforesaidlandwas handedoverto the PowerDepartmentofGovernment ofDelhi in February,2008 and the acquisitiohofthevlandin questionis of November, 2004 and during the interveningperiod land rates had steadilyincreasedand therefore,aforesaidallotmentcannotbe made the basis to determine the market value of the acquired land as the interveninggap is ofthreeyears. The factorsto be consideredto determinethe marketvalue ofthe acquiredlands as reiteratedby the Apex Courtin GeneralManager,Oil andNaturalGas CorporationLtd vs. RameshbhaiJivanbhaiPateland , Anr, (2008) 14 SCC 745, are as underl ie. Primarily, the increase in land prices depends on fourfactors:situationofthe land, natureofdeiyelopmentin surroundingarea, availabilityof landfor developmentin the area, and the demandfor land in the area. In rural areas, unless there is any prospectof developmentin the vicinity, increase in prices would be slow, steady and gradual, withoutany suddenspurtsorjumps. On the other hand, in urbanor semi-urbanareas, wherethe development isfaster, wherethe demandfor landis highandwherethere is constructionactivityall around, the escalation in market price is at a much higherrate,.as comparedto rural areas. ; In somepocketsin big cities, due to rapiddevelopmentand high demand 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, thepricesstagnatedforyears or rose marginallyat a nominal rate of 1% or 2%) per annum. There is thus a significantdifferencein increasesin marketvalue oflands in urban/semi-urbanareasandincreasesin marketvalueof lands in the ruralareas. Therefore,ifthe increasein market value in urban/semi-urbanareas is about10% to 15%per annum, the correspondingincreasesin ruralareaswoulfdat lA.App.No. 115/2011&connectedAppealsofVillageBamnoli Page 10 ofIS best be only around half of it, that is about 5% to 7.5%per annum. This rule of thumb refers to the general trend in the nineties, to be adopted in the absence of clear and specific evidence relating to increase in prices. Where there are special reasons for applying a higher rate of increase, or any specific evidence relating to the actual increase in prices, then the increase to be applied would depend upon the same.

¶15Normally, recourse is taken to the mode of determining the market value by providing appropriate escalation over the proved market value of nearby lands 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 method is reasonably safe where the relied-oh sale transactions/ acquisitions precede the subject acquisition by only a few years, that is uptofour tofive years. Beyondthat it may be unsafe, even if it relates to a neighbouringland. What may be a reliable standard if the gap is only a few years, may become unsafe and unreliablestandard where the gap is larger. For example,for determiningthe marketvalue ofa land acquired in 1992, adopting the annual increase methodwith reference to a sale or acquisition in 1970 or 1980 may have many pitfalls. This is because, over the course of years, the "rate" of annual increase may itself undergo drastic change apart from the likelihood of occurrence of varying periods of stagnation in prices or sudden spurts in prices affecting the very standard of increase." . I

¶19Being mindful of the ratio of the decisionof the Apex Court in ONGC (supra), I fmd that the instance of institutional allotment (Ex.PW13/l)of the year 2007 heavily relied upon by the appellants would not be a useful guide to determine the market value of the land in question, as the said allotmentwas made after a period of three years from the date of acquisitionof the land in question.It is so saidbecause the sale exemplaroftherelevantperiodofthis veryvillagein questionis LA.App.No. 115/2011& connectedAppealsofVillageBamnoli Page 11 of15 p} available.Therefore,the aforesaidinstanceof allotmentof land.tothe PowerDepartmentofGovernmentofDelhihas been rightlyrejectedby the Reference Court. 20; Nowwhatis requiredto be consideredis whetherthe sale instance (Ex.R-1)reliedupon by the ReferenceCourtis acomparableinstanceor not. Undisputedly,sale instance(Ex.R-1)is ofthis veryvillageand is of October, 2004 whereas the land in question was acquired vide "Notificationof November, 2004. Evidently, aforesaid sale instance (Ex.R-1)IS not onlyrelevantbut is comparableas it has not been shown by the appellantsas to what are the distinguishingfeatureswhich would make it inapplicableto determinethe marketvalueofthe acquiredlands. Findingofthe ReferenceCourtthatwhenthe sale instance(Ex.R-1)was exhibitedno objectionwas raisedby the claimantsand as per section51-A of Land Acquisition Act, 1894, a certified copy of a registered documentis acceptablein evidence sind since this documenthas been tenderedin evidenceby the Respondents,the same can be read against them,remainsunimpeachable.

¶21However,to meet the aforesaidfindingofthe ReferenceCourt, it was submittedby learnedcounsel for the appellantsthat opportunityto lead rebuttalevidenceto show that sale instance(Ex.R-1)is not reliable ^ or bonafide, an applicationto leadrebuttalevidencewas filedbeforethe ReferenceCourt which was illegallyrejectedvide order of 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~l).

¶22First of all, appellantsoughtto have objectedto the exhibitionof aforesaidsale instance(Ex.R-1).Havingnot done so, appellantshave to face the legal consequences. Secondly, even if application of the LA.App. No. 115/2011& connectedAppealsofVillageBamnoli Page 12 of15 appellantsfor leadingrebuttal evidencewas rejectedby the Reference Court,nothinghad stoppedthem from movingan applicationfor leading additionalevidencein the appeal to lead evidencein order to demolish the sale instance (Ex.R-1). Not only this, even during the course of hearing,nothingwas urgedto show as to how the sale instance(Ex.R-1) is not genuine/reliableorcomparable.'

23.; In the light of the evidence on record, I am of the considered opinionthatthe ReferenceCourthas rightlyreliedupon theisale instance (Ex.R-1)to determinethe marketvalueofthe acquiredlands.Findingno merit in the instantappealsof claimantsand cross-objectionby one of them, the same are dismissedwhile leavingthe partiesto beartheir own costs.

¶24So far as appeals of the Respondentsare concerned,I find no substancein them, becausethe determinationofthe marketvalue ofthe acquiredland by the ReferenceCourthas been done whilerelyingupon the sale instance (Ex.R-1) produced by the, Respondents themselves. Regardingdoing away ofthe classificationofthe acquiredland into 'A' block and 'B' Block by the ReferenceCourt is concerned,I find that this classificationhas areasonablebasis. That is to say, land with top soil and the landwithouttop soil cannotbe put at par as the marketvalue ofthe landwithouttop soil is boundto be lesserthanthe marketvalueof the land with top soil.

¶25Endorsingthe pricedifferentiationbetween'A' categoryland and B' category land, my esteemed brother Pradeep Nandrajog, J., in a recentdecisionin LA.App.No.266/20Q8,titledas JaiSingh&Ors. vs. Union ofIndia&Ors., renderedon 23^^ August2011, whilerelyingon the decision of the Division Bench of this court mGajraj Singh vs. UnionofIndia, 2006 (VI) AD Delhi 13, has held as under:- LA-App.No. 115/2011&connectedAppealsofVillageBamnoli Page 13 of115 ^3 "56. In GajrajSingh'scase (supra), thepricedifferential worked Qiit was t25,000/- per acre. I have \noted hereinabovethat the acquisition,in Gajraj Singh's case pertainedto the date 15.11.1996.In GajrajSingh'scase the pricefor Category 'A 'landdeterminedwas ^9,76,121/-per acre andfor Category 'B' land the price determinedwas 951,121/-per acre and the price differentialcomes to about 2.5% with reference to the price of Category 'A' land.

¶57I thus hold that Gajraj Singh's case should be my guidingstarfor price differentialin the instant cases as well and thusI holdthat whereverCategory 'A Category ^Ji^d Category'Chave to be differentiatedonprice, the differential should be 2.5%. " . 26. Consequentially,the findingofthe ReferenceCourtregardingthe 'A' categoryand 'B' categoryland beingsimilarlysituatedhavingsame potentialityand becausethey are acquiredfor the same publicpurpose, • cannotbe sustainedin the lightofthe aforesaidobsewations.However, the claim of the Union of India, to seek adoption of the minimum indicative-priceof agriculturalland in Delhi while forgettingth^it the Appellant-UOI itselfhas reliedupon the sale instance(Ex.R-1),merits rejection.

¶21In viewofthe.afore-goingnarration,I find thatno substancein the appeals filed by claimantsas well as in cross objectionof one of the claimantsand the same are dismissed. So far as the appeals'filed by Union ofIndiaare concerned,the same are partlyallowedto the extent that the compensationawarded by the Reference Court for the 'B' categoiy of lands (as noticed in the Award of the Land Acquisition Collector)is reducedfrom?17,45,000peracreto ?17,01,375/-peracre.

¶28Beforepartingthis order,I would like to bring on recordthat the brevity of this order is occasioned by the fact that the impugned judgment is well consideredon facts,and the law. Therefore,I have LA.App.No. 115/2011&connectedAppealsofVillageBamnoli p^gg 14 of;,5 purposefullynot adverted to the entire evidence on record and the .•elevant evidence, i.e. of the sale exemplars has been taken into considerationby me in this order. .

¶29The above captionedappealsand cross-objectionare disposedof ; with directionto the Registiyto remitthe compensationamount,ifany, depositedby eitherside with the RegistrarGeneralofthis Court,to thJ concerned Reference Court. February 01, 2012 pkb/rs NIL GAUR) JUDGE ^A.App.No. 115/2011&connectedAppealsofVillageBamnoli jg

% % IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI LA.APP. 21/2011 UOI Through: versus YOGESH KUMAR & ORS Through: Reserved on: January 12, 2012 Pronounced on: February 01. 2012 Appellant Mr.Sanjay Poddar, Senior Advocate with Mr.Sanjay Pathak, Ms.Navlin Swain, Ms.K.K.Kiran and Mr.S.N.Pandey, Advocates for UOI Mr. Yeeshu Jain, 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 for DDA in (R-74-77 & 80) Mr.Mohinder Singh Charak, Advocate (R-63 and 112) Respondent Mr.B.S.Maan, Mr.Amit 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 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.Routand Mr.B.K.Routray, Advocates (in R-74 and for respondent on R-79) CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR