UOI v. Bhay Ram & Anr

ORDER

01.02.2012 For orderssee LA.App.No.l 15/2011,titledasJai Prakash vs. Union ofIndia & A nr. FEBRUARY 01, 2012 pkb -=(S^LGAUR) 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. % H-IN TBDE' HIGH COURT OF BEtHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on: January 12, 2011 Pronounced on: February 01/2012 LA.APP. 11 :)/2011 (VILLAGE BAMNOLI) JAIPRAKA UNION OF SH Appellant Through: Mr.B.S.Maan, Mr.Amit Maan, Mr.R.S.Verma, MrJai 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 M-.B.D.Sharma, Mr.S.K.Rout, Mi'.B.K.Routray, Mr.Vinay Kumar, Advocates in (R-84 to 86, 88-102, 104) Mr.S.K.Rout and j\4r.B.K.Routray, Advocates (in R-74 and for respondent on R-79) versus NDIA & ANR. Respondents Through: Mr.Sanjay Poddar, Senior Advocate with Mr.Sanjay Pathalc, Ms.Navlin Swain, Ms.K.K.Kiran and Mr.S.N.Pandey, Advocates forUOI Ml". 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.BanlceyBihari Sharma, • Ms.AmitaSingh,^ir.S.K.SethiandMr.Kunal Sharma, Advocates for DDA in (R-74-77 & , 80) Mr.MohinderSinghCharak,Advocate(R-63 and 112) LA.APP. 16/2011 CaI^P. 19_/2Mf\' LA.APP. 22/2011 LA.APP. 90/2011 LA.APP. 93/2011 AND • ; LA.APP. 17/2011 LA.APP. 20/2011 LA.APP. 23/2011 LA.APP. 91/2011 LA.APP. 94/2011 LA.App.No. 115/2011& connectedAppealsofVillageBamnoli LA.APP. 18/2011 LA.APP. 21/2011 LA.APP. 24/2011 . LA.APP. 92/2011 LA.APP. 95/2011 Page ! of 15 LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. i.A.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 7/2011 1/2011 4/2011 178/2011 6/2011 2/2011 4/2011. 207/2011 0/2011 26B/2011 275/2011 293/2011 304/2011 307/2011 310/2011 313/2011 31^/2011 319/2011 325/2011 355/2011 358/2011 36^/2011 492/2011 49^/2011 499/2011 503/2011 506/2011 513/2011 573/2011 576/2011 592/2011 /2011. '2011 280/ 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. 176/201.1 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. 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/132Hof 04.11.2004 issuedunderSection4ofthe LandAcquisitionAct, 1894& 1/2007-2008of06.08.2008,VillageBamnoli,New Delhi) Award No. •A.App. No. 115/2011&ccnnectedAppealsofVillageBamnoli \y % CORAM HON'BLE

¶1Abov of about 2: Planned De under the L the rate of • the consent final hearii adjudicated

¶2Land fixed by Go ^14,13,000/

¶3Not Collector, b upon Notifi Corporation instant ville Notification MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR ORDER

01.02.2012 e captioned appeals and cross-objections relate to acquisition 00 bighas of land in Village Bamnoli, Delhi notified for /elopmentof Delhi vide Notificationof 4^*^ November,2004 and AcquisitionAct, 1894 and since the impugned order of the ReferenceCourt in these appeals uniformlygrants compensationat. ^17,45,000per acre with statutorybenefits,therefore,with of learned counsel for the parties,who were presentat the ig, these matters were heard together and are being upon by this common order. AcquisitionCollectorwhilerelyingupon the indicativeprice vemment of NCT of Delhi for agricultural land in Delhi for the periodhi question,had determinedthe marketvalue ofthe acquired land in questionat the aforesaidrate of?15,70,000/-'^e7''acre ofleveled land in Block A, whereas for the acquiredland excavatedbeyond one meter, i.e., 31ock B land, compensationwas determinedat the rate of per acre. atisfied with the aforesaid Award of Land Acquisition sfore the Reference Pourt, appellants/claimantshad relied cation of 24^'^ October, 1994 issued by the Municipal of Delhi declaring the land in 20 villages including the ge to be urbanized.-Reliance was, also placed upon of 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& :onnectedAppealsofVillageBamnoli t . ^3 New Delhi.

¶4Whil 1/13,) of the purchased ' certified co I ' : relying upon seven sale instances (Ex.PW-1/7 ko Ex.PW-year 1999,relatingto agriculturalland in VillagePochanpur :y a religious society - Radha Swami Satsang, Beas, and py of Sale Deed of 27^'' September,2004 (Ex.PW-1/14)of Village Bharthal,enhancementin compensationwas sought. Reference Court upon evaluation of the evidence on record concluded theit there was no evidenceto the effect that location,potentialand utility of the Villagesof Bharthal,Pochanpurand Bamnoliis similarand not to rely upon the aforesaid' sale instances as the Sale his very village was available. u absence of the evidence of the Vendor/Vendee of the aforesaid sale instances.Reference Court had discarded the aforesaid sale instancesreliedupon by the appellants/claimants,whileadvertingto paragraphn(j: 29 ofthe Apex Courtdecisionin Lai Chandvs. Union,of India and Am., (2009) 15 SCC 769. Before dealing with the sale instances(Ex.R-Iand Ex.R-II)ofVillageBamnoli,ReferenceCourthad refused to apply Delhi DevelopmentAuthority auction rate for the land in the. had .chosen instance of 1

¶5In th commercial placing imp plots or the scheduleof market rates for Vasant Vihar by icit reliance upon the Apex Court decision in Lai Chand (supra) to hold that market price for the developed land camiot be applied wliile detemiining tlie market price of the undeveloped agricultural land in Delhi. i ' i

¶6To fortifythe aforesaidfinding,ReferenceCourt has extensively •ssagesfrom the Apex Courtdecisionin Lai Chand(supra) r, had proceededto discardheavilyreliedupon instanceof

14.5 acres of the acquired land by Delhi Development -he PowerDepartmeiitofGovernmentofNCtIofDelhi for quoted the pj and thereafte allotment of Authority to LA.App, No. 115/2011 & onnectedAppealsofVillageBamnoli h constructio [1 of 715 Mega Watt Gas Based Power Plant/Project,while holding as under;- '77. ^297 Buye devel The allotmentof1.5 hectareoflandfor apremiumof 42 lakh per acre is an inter departmental allotment. and seller both are agencies of state. Since no lopment/constructioncan' take place on the land in questionwithoutpermissionofDDA In view of Section 12 of the Delhi Development Act, 1957 determination of premiumfor allotmentofland in developmentarea is not an ordinarysale betweenaprudentbuyerandseller.Premium of land in such an allotment'cannot be called the market price of land which a prospectivebuyer of similar land sittingin his armchairwouldbe willingtopay.

¶78date

04.11 Moreover,there is a time gap ofthreeyears between of Notificationunder Section 4 of LA Act which is 2004 and date of allotment which is 25.11.2007. Markztprice ofland allottedafter 3. years ofNotification under Section 4 of LA Act cannot be taken into considerationfor determiningmarket value on the date of NotificationunderSection 4. As per Section24 ofLA Act, the Courtshallnot take into-considerationany increaseto the value ofthe landacquiredlikelyto accruefrom the use to whi chitwill beput when required."

¶7On being in, the Reference C "94. the aspectoftheacquiredlandbeingdeclaredurbanizedand of developmentzone, the pertinentfindings returned by the Durt are as under

¶95docum iA.App. No. 115/2011& Landofpetitioneris agriculturallandalthoughit is in urbanized area and in development zone. 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 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. . The petitionerhas brought.no evidence, leave aside "^ntary evidence that,the acquired land was suitable onnectedAppealsofVillageBamnoli. pagg5 ^5 « for putting up buildings, be they residential or commercial or industrial as the case may be. There is no building activitystarted on the land in questioneven afterpassing of a decade since area was urbanized. " 8; On the Court has take all four sides question of potentiality of the acquired land, Reference n note of the fact that this acquired land is surrounded on by Villages-Bharthal, Bijwasan, Pochanpurand Dhul Siras. Noticingthat acquiredland is in the vicinity of Dwarka, where oping colonies and therefore, adoption of the minimum DDA is devel r^tes for agriculturalland fixedby the GovernmentofDelhiby the Land !? ' • ' ' )llector.wasnot justified.Upon consideringthe two sale Acquisition C instancesof 25"^ October,2004 (Ex.R-1)and of20'^' April,2004 (Ex.R-2) of this very village, Reference Court had discarded the sale instance ^Ex.R-2) as sale considerationof ^9,02,496per acre was found to be had chosen to rely upon the sale instance (Ex.R-1) consideration of ?17,45,1,08 which was found to be depressed and depicting sale comparable."

¶9In the ir appellants that stant appeals, it was' vehementlyurged on behalf of' the the effectofNotification,of 24^^ October, 1994 declaring the acquired lands being fit for urbanizationand Notificationof 16"' •egardingthe changeof land use underthe MasterPlan of October, 2000 Delhi has not been consideredby the ReferenceCourtto appreciatethe tiuepotentialofthe acquiredland. Reliancewas placedupon decisionof the Apex Court in SpecialLandAcquisitionOfficer sS: Am V5, MJL• RqfiqSaheb,(2011)7SCC 714, by learnedcounselfor the appellantsto contend that ir view of the aforesaidNotifications,the acquired land cannotbe treat(;das an agriculturalland for determinationof its market value.

¶10Aforesaidcontentionis noticedfor beingoutrightlyrejectedas the , |y^.App.No. 115/2011& connectedAppealsofVillageBamnoli Page 6 of 15, \(5 acquiredlandg may not to be termed as agriculturalland,but they were certainlyundeveloped.Government'sminimumrates for the agricultural I land applicableto Delhi have been rightly discardedby the Reference Court. So, r€:liance placed upon M.K. Rafiq Saheb (supra), is clearly misplaced, as the Reference Court has determined the market value of the acquired

¶11' There and whilerelyingupona sale exemplarofthis veryvillage, s ho question of discarding the aforesaid Notifications. In fact, inspite of the aforesaidNotificationsno developmentactivitywas there on the acquiredlands as no permissionwas soughtby the owners ofthe acquiredlandsunderDelhi DevelopmentAct and therefore,it can be safely concludedthat the acquiredlands were undevelopedand the ot be comparedwith developedlands for determiningthe ofthe acquiredland. Thus, relianceplaced by appellant's UdhoDass vs. StateofHaryana&Ors., 2010 (9) SCALE same could n market value counsel upon 41 is of no avail.

¶12Rejection of auction rates of Delhi DevelopmentAuthority, in Sector 20 and 22 of Dwarka, by the Reference Court, is assailed by learnedcouns(;lfor the appellantsby contendingthatthe acquiredland is fully comparable with the aforesaid land and is in proximity and therefore,the inarketvalueofthe acquiredlandoughtto have been fixed to the auctionrates ofthe Delhi DevelopmentAuthority. with reference i ReferenceCourthas not only reliedupon the decisionofApex Courtin LM Chand V5 extensively qi decision of the LA.App.No. 115/2011 & cor Union ofIndia and Am., (2009) 15 SCC 769 but has loted relevant passages therefrom to hold that the sale considerationof the developedlands cannot be appliedto the acquired lands which £,re undisputedlyundeveloped. At the hearing in these appeals, learnfjd counsel for the appellant could not distinguishthe Apex Court in Lai Chand(supra),whose ratio squarely nectedAppealsofVillageBamnoli- '• LA applies to th(; instant cases. Therefore, I find that the Reference Court has rightlyrefusedto apply Delhi DevelopmentAuthorityauctionrates for determiningthemarketvalueofthe acquiredland.

¶13Whilereiteratingthe well settledprincipleoflaw that compgirable sale instances,are the best piece of evidenceto be consideredby the Court for the purposeofdeterminingthe compensation.Apex Court in its recent decision in RadliaMudaliyar Vs. Special Tahsildar(Land Acquisition Tamil Nadu Housing Board) 13 SCC 384 has :observed as under:- "13. Comparablesales instancesare the safestmethodfor determiningthe marketvalue of the acquiredland and as laid do-", should genuine executei vn in ShajiKuriakosev. Indian Oil Corpn. Ltd., it satisfy the factors, inter alia (1) the sale must be transaction;

(2) the sale, deed must have been ji? at the time proximateto the date ofissuanceof notificGi'^^ionunderSection4 ofthe Act; (3) the landcovered by the sale must be in the vicinityofthe acquiredland; (4) the landcoveredby the sale must be similarto the acquired landand (5) size oftheplotofthe landcoveredby the sale be comparableto the acquired land. The sales instances shouldpreferablybe closest to the date of notificationas then alone it wouldsatisfythe touchstoneoftheprinciples contemplated under Section 23 of the Act, as held in Kanwar .14. Fixation Singh vj'. Union ofIndia. " of the marketvalue of the acquiredland on the basis of the sale instances(Ex.PW-1/7to Ex.PW-1/14)ofthe adjoiningvillaiges, as sought by the appellants stands rightly rejected by the Reference Court as the sale instancesofthis very villageare available.When it is so, then there is no need to look for the sale instancesof the adjoining villages. - i ,15. On the aforesaidreasoning,adoptionofthe L&DO rates to fix.the marketvalueofthe acquiredlands soughtby the appellantsis outrightly rejected. Appellants' counsel had relied upon decision of the Apex •App, Nd. 115/2011&cornectedAppealsofVillageBamnoli Page8of15 V6 Court in Kiriin Tandon vs. AllahabadDevelopmentAuthority,(.2004) 10 see 745 and in Valliyammal and Am-ra. Special Tehsildar (Land Acquisition) and Am., AIR 2011 SC 2937 to assert that deduction of developmentchargeswas improperand where large area, eloped, is acquired, normally, deduction of about 33% is The need: to look for sale instances in the vicinity is .ew of the fact that the sale instancesof the instantvillage and so the requirementof consideringthe apphcabilityof Iices (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 appellants is of no consequence. the course ofhearing, learned counsel for the appellants lelied upon the instanceofallotmentof 14.5 hectares(37 40% towards not fully dev permissible. . obviated in v are available the sale insta sde instance

¶16- During had strongly acres approximately)by Delhi DevelopmentAuthority to the Power Department o of X297.42 h enliancement f Delhi Governmenton leaseholdbasis at a consideration acs per acre with 2.5%. annual ground rent to claim ofcompensationat the rate of lacsper acre over and abovethe marketvalue fixed by the ReferenceCourtas the allotmentof the aforesaidland was out ofthe acquiredland. With much vehemence, it was assertedby learned counsel for the appellantsthat the aforesaid' clearly comparable and therefore, on its basis the ought to be enhancedwhile treatingthe acquiredland to be at par with the aforesaid land allotted to Power Defjartmentof Government o;!"Delhi. the aforesaidstand of the appellants,it was pointedout nor counsel for the Respondentsthat aforesaidallotment allotment is compensation

¶17To meet by learned sen by Delhi DevelopmentAuthorityto Power Departmentof Government LA.App.No. 115/2011 & cor nectedAppealsofVillageBamnoli ft of Delhi was made in November, 2007 and the possession of the aforesaid land was handed over to the Power Department of Government of Delhi in February, 2008 and the acquisition of the land in question is of November, 2004 and during the intervening period land rates had steadily increased and therefore, aforesaid allotment caiinot be made the basis to determine the market value of the acquired land as the intervening gap is of three years.

¶18The factors to be considered to determine the market value of the acquired lands as reiterated by the Apex Court in General Manager, Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd Rameshbhai Jivanbhai Patel and Am, (2008) 1see 745, are as under:- "13. Primarily, the increase in land prices depends on four factors: situation of the land, nature ofdevelopmentin surrouming area, availability of land for development in the area, and the demand for land in the area. In rural areas, unless there is any prospect of development in the vicinity, increase in prices would be slow, steady and gradual, without any sudden spurts or jumps. On the other hand, in urban or semi-urbanareas, where the development isfaster, where the demandfor land is high and.where there is construction activity all around, the escalation in market price is at a much higher rate, as compared to rural areas. In somepockets in bigcities, due to rapid developmentand 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 of any developmentand hardly any buyers, theprices stagnatedfor years or rose marginallyat a nominal rate of 1% or 2% per annimt. There is thus' a significantdijferencein increases in market value of lands in urban/semi-urbanareasand increasesin marketvalue of lands in therural areas. Therefore,ifthe increase in market value in urban/semi-urbanareas is about 10% to 15%per annum, the corresponding increases in rural areas would at LA.App.No. 115/20] 1 & co:inected Appeals of VillageBamnoli best be only around half of it, that is aboijt 5% to 7.5%per annum. This rule ofthumb refers to the generaltrend\inthe nineties, to be adopted in the absence of clear and specific evidence relating to increase in priciis. Where there are special reasons for applying a higher rate of increase, or any spzcific 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 previoils 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-on sale transactions/ acquisitions precede the subject acquisition by only a few years, that is upto four tofive years. Beyond that it may be unsafe, even if it relates to.a neighbouring land. What may " be a reliable standard if the gap is only a few years, may become unsafe and unreliable standard where the gap is larger. For example,for determining the market value of a land acquired in 1992, adopting the annual increase method with 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."

¶19Being riindful of the ratio of the decision of the Apex Court in ONGC (supra), I find that the instance of institutional allotment (Ex.PW13/l) of the year 2007 heavily rehed 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 said because the sale exemplarof the relevantperiod of this very village in questionis LA.App. No. 115/2011 & connected Appeals of Village Bamnoli' available.Therefore,the aforesaidinstance of allotment of land to the PowerDepartmentofGoyemiTientofDelhi has been rightlyrejectedby, the Reference Court. vhat is required to be considered is whether the sale instance

¶20Now (Ex.R-1)reli(;dupon by the ReferenceCourtis a comparableinstanceor not. Undisputedly,sale instance(Ex.R-1)is ofthis very villageand is of October, 2004 whereas the land in question was acquired vide Notification of November, 2004. Evidently, aforesaid sale'instance (Ex.R-1)is not onlyrelevantbut is comparableas ithas not been shown by the appellantsas to what are the.distinguishingfeatureswhich would make it inapplicableto determinethe marketvalueofthe acquiredlands. Findingofth(; 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 and 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 :Ln applicationto leadrebuttalevidencewas filed beforethe urt which was illegallyrejected.videorderof25"' August, 2010 and therefore, this matter needs to be remanded back to the Reference CoLrt to enable the appellantsto lead rebuttal evidence to demolishaforesaidsale instance(Ex.R-1). all, appellantsought to have objectedto the exhibitionof instance(Ex.R-1).Havingnot done so, appellantshave to or bona fide. Reference Co

¶22First of aforesaid sale face the legal consequences. Secondly, even if application of the LA.App.No. 115/2011& connectedAppealsofVillageBamnoli Page 12 of IS • appellants fc Court, nothir

¶24So far substance in acquired land ir leading rebuttal evidence was rejected by the Reference g h^d stopped them from moving an application for leading additional evidence in the appeal to lead ev^ence in order to demolish the sale instance (Ex.R-1). Not only this, even during the course of hearing,nothingwas urgedto show as to howthe sale instance(Ex.R-1) is not genuine/reliable or comparable.

¶23In the light of the evidence on record, I am of the considered opinionthatthe ReferenceCourthas rightlyrelieduponthe sale instance (Ex.R-1)to determinethe marketvalueofthe acquiredlands.Findingno, merit in the :nstantappeals of claimantsand cross-objectionby one of them, the same are dismissedwhile leavingthe partiesto beartheir own costs. as appeals of the Respondents are concerned, I find no hem, because the determination of the market value of the by the ReferenceCourthas been done while relyingupon the sale instance (Ex.R-1) produced by the Respondentsthemselves. Regarding do block and 'B ing away of the classificationof the acquiredland into 'A' Block by the Reference Courc is concerned, I find that this classificationhas a reasonablebasis..That is to say, land with top soil and the landwithouttop soil cannotbe putatpar as themarketvalue of the land without top soil is bound to be lesser than the market value of .qp soil. ng the pricedifferentiationbetween'A' categ6ryland and I land, my esteemed brother Pradeep Nandrajog, J., in a 1 illLA.App.No.266/2008,titled as Jai Singh & Ors. ra. the land with i

¶25Endorsi 'B' category recent decisio Union ofIndia <&. Ors., renderedon 23'"''August2011, whilerelyingon the decision c LA.App. No. 115/2011 & co f the Division Bench of this court in Gajraj Union ofIndiz, 2006 (VI) AD Delhi 13, has held as under:- VS, nnected Appeals of Village Bamqoli

¶56in GajrajSingh'scase (supra), theprice differential worked out was 125,000/- per acre. I have noted hereinabove that the acquisition in Gajraj Singh's case pertained to the date 15.11.1996.In Gajraj Singh's case the pricefor Category 'A ' landdeterminedwas ^9,76,121/-per acre and for 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 thus hold that Gajraj Singh's case should be my guiding-star for price differential in the instarit cases as well and thus I holdthat whereverCategory 'A ', Category 'B'and Category 'C have to be differentiatedonprice, the differertial should be 2.5%o." '

¶26Consequentially,the findingofthe ReferenceCourtregardingthe 'A' categoryand 'B' categoryland beingsimilarlysituatedhavingsame potentialityand becausethey are acquiredfor the same publicpurpose, ;ainedin the light ofthe aforesaidobservations.However, the Union of India, to seek adoption of the minimum :e of agriculturalland in Delhi while forgettingthat the 01 itselfhas reliedupon the sale instance(Ex.R-1),merits cannot be sus the claim of indicative "pri Appellant - U rejection.

¶27In view appeals filed claimants and •ofthe,afore-goingnarration,I fmd thatno substancein the 3y claimantsas well as in cross objectionof one of the the same are dismissed..So far as the appeals'filedby Union of Indiaare concerned,the same are partlyallowedto the extent that the compensationawarded by the Reference Court for the 'B' category of lands (as noticed in the Award of the Land Acquisition Collector)is reducedfrom^17,45,000:^eracreto ?17,01,375/-acre.

¶28Beforepartingthis order,I would like to bringon record'that the brevity of this order is occasioned,by the fact that the impugned judgment is y^ell consideredon facts and the law. Therefore,I have LA;App.No. 115/2011 & co inectedAppealsofVillageBaranoli purposefullyrot adverted to the entire evidence on record and the relevant evidence, i.e. of the sale exemplars has been taken into consideration hy me in this order. captionedappeals and cross-objectionare disposedof othe Registryto remitthe compensationamount,ifany, depositedby eitherside with the RegistrarGeneralofthis Court, to the concerned Reference Court.

¶29The abo^ with direction February 01,2012 pkb/rs -A.^pp.No. II5/20!1 C& connec:ed AppealsofVillageBamnoli 'NIL GAUR) JUDGE

r % % \0 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on: January 12, 2012 Pronounced on: February 01. 2012 LA.APP. 19/2011 UOI Appellant Through: Mr.SanjayPoddar,SeniorAdvocatewithMr.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.Bankey 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) versus BHAY RAM & ANR Through: 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.Rout and Mr.B.K.Routray, Advocates (in R-74 and for respondent on R-79) CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR