Union of India v. Baljeet & Ors

ORDER

23.02.2012

¶1Learned counsel for the appellant/UOI states that fate of this appeal would be governed by LA.APP No. 115/2011 'Jai Prakash Vs. UnionofIndia &Another', renderedon 1®' Februar>',2012.

¶2In the light of aforesaid, this appeal is disposed of in terms of decision in LA APP No.115/2011 'Jai Prakash Vs. Union ofIndia & Another',renderedon 1®' February,2012 with no ordersas to costs. IL GAUR, J FEBRUARY 23, 2012/b Certify that the digital and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file and no page is missing. m % IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on: January 12, 2011 Pronounced on: February 01, 2012 LA.APP. 115/2011 (VILLAGE BAMNOLI) JAI PRAKASH Through: Appellant 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 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) versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR. Respondents Through: 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, II3-123 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.MohinderSingh Charak,Advocate(R-63 and 112) I.A.APP. 16/2011

1.A.APP. 19/2011 LA.APP. 22/2011 LA.APP. 90/2011 LA.APP. 93/201 1 AND LA.APP. 17/2011 LA.APP. 20/2011 LA,APP. 23/2011 LA.APP. 91/2011 LA.APP. 94/201] LA.APP. 18/2011 LA.APP. 21/2011 r.A.APP. 24/2011 LA.APP. 92/2011 r.A.APP. 95/2011 i AApp, No. 115/2011& connectedAppealsofVillageBamnoli iMf': •'v?; ;• , ••• •'i? f .f i;- I ^ - LA.APP. 115/2011 LA.APP. 167/2011 LA.APP. 171/2011 LA.APP. 174/2011 LA.APP. 178/2011 LA.APP. 186/2011 LA.APP. 192/2011 LA.APP. 204/2011 LA.APP. 207/2011 LA.APP. 210/2011 LA.APP. 263/2011 LA.APP. 275/2011 r.A.APP. 293/2011 LA.APP. 304/2011 LA.APP. 307/2011 LA.APP. 310/2011 W LA.APP. 313/2011 LA.APP. 316/2011 LA.APP. 319/2011 LA.APP. 325/2011 LA.APP. 355/2011 LA.APP. 358/2011 LA.APP. 364/2011 LA.APP. 492/2011 LA.APP. 495/2011 LA.APP. 499/2011 LA.APP. 503/2011 LA.APP. 506/2011 LA.APP. 513/2011 LA.APP. 573/2011 LA.APP. 576/2011 LA.APP. 592/2011 LA.App. 196/2011 LA.App. 280/2011 LA.App. 283/2011 LA.App. 287/2011 LA.APP. 133/201] LA.APP. 168/2011 LA.APP. 172/2011 LA.APP. 175/2011 LA.APP. 179/2011 LA.APP. 187/2011 LA.APP. 193/2011 LA.APP. 205/2011 LA.APP. 208/2011 LA.APP. 211/2011 LA.APP. 264/2011 LA.APP. 276/2011 LA.APP. 295/2011 LA.APP. 305/2011 LA.APP. 308/2011 LA.APP. 311/2011 LA.APP. 314/2011 LA.APP. 317/2011 LA.APP. 320/2011 LA.APP. 352/201 1 LA.APP. 356/2011 LA.APP. 359/2011 LA.APP. 490/2011 LA.APP. 493/2011 LA.APP. 497/2011 LA.APP. 501/2011 LA.APP. 504/2011 LA.APP. 507/2011 LA.APP. 524/2011 LA.APP. 574/2011 LA.APP. 577/2011 LA.APP. 645/2011 LA.App. 278/2011 LA.App. 281/2011 LA.App. 284/2011 LA.App. 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. 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 04.11.2004 i^/nAA 4ofthe Land AcquisitionAct. 1894& Award No 1/2007-2008of06.08.2008.VillageBamnoli,New bem^ I.A.App. No. I15/201I& connectedAppealsof VillageBamnoli Page 2 oflS % CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR ORDER

01.02.2012

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

¶2Land AcquisitionCollectorwhilerelyingupon the indicativeprice fixed by GovernmentofNCT ofDelhi for agriculturalland in Delhi for the period in question,had determinedthe marketvalueofthe acquired land in questionat the aforesaidrate of?15,70,000/-j!7eracre ofleveled land in Block A, whereas for the acquired land excavatedbeyond one meter, i.e.. Block Bland, compensationwas determinedat the rate of ?14,13,000/-per acre.

¶3Not satisfied with the aforesaid Award of Land Acquisition ^ Collector,before the ReferenceCourt, appellams/claimantshad relied upon Notification of 24"' October, 1994 issued by the Municipal Coiporationof Delhi declaring the land in 20 villages,includingthe instant village to be urbanized. Reliance was also placed upon Notificationof 16'" October.2000 declaringchange of land use of the acquired land in questionand thereupon,Delhi DevelopmentAuthority had preparedZonal DevelopmentPlan for DwarkaSub City in Dwarka,

1.A,A"p.No, 115/201,&connectedAppealsofVillageBamnoli ' New Delhi.

¶4While relying upon seven sale instances (Ex.PW-1/7 to Ex.PW-1/13)ofthe year 1999, relatingto agriculturalland in VillagePochanpur purchased by a religious society - Radha Swami Satsang, Beas, and certifiedcopy of Sale Deed of2?"' September,2004 (Ex.PW-1/14)of Village Bharthal,enhancementin compensationwas sought. Reference Court upon evaluation of the evidence on record concluded that there was no evidence to the effect that location,potentialand utility of the land in the Villagesof Bharthal,Pochanpurand Bamnoliis similarand had chosen not to rely upon the aforesaid sale instances as the Sale instanceof this very villagewas available.

¶5In the 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 paiagiaphno. 29 ofthe Apex Courtdecisionin Lai Chand vs. 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 commercialplots or the schedule of market rates for Vasant Vihar by placmg implicit reliance upon 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 agricultural land in Delhi.

¶6To fortify the aforesaidfinding, ReferenceCourt has extensively quoted the passagesfrom the Apex Courtdecisionin Lai Chand(supra) and thereafter,had proceededto discardheavilyrelied upon instanceof allotment of 14.5 acres of the acquired land by Delhi Development Authorityto the PowerDepartmentofGovernmentofNCT ofDelhi for l.A.App.No. 115/2011& connectedAppealsofVillageBamnoli constructionof 715 Mega Watt Gas Based Power Plant/Project,while holding as under:-

¶77The allotmentoj 1.5 hectareoflandfor a premiumof ^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 ofSection 12 of the Delhi Development Act, 1957 determination of premiumfor allotmentofland in developmentarea is not an ordinarysale betweena prudent buyerand seller. Premium, of land in such an allotment cannot be called the market price of land which a prospective buyer of similar land sittingin his armchairwouldbe willingto pay.

¶78Moreover,there is a time gap 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 of land allottedafter 3 years ofNotification under Section of LA Act cannot be taken into considerationfor determiningmarket value on the date of Notificationunder Section 4. As per Section 24 ofLA Act, the Courtshall not take into considerationany increaseto the value ofthe landacquiredlikely to accruefrom the use to which it will beput when required. "

¶7On the aspectof the acquiredland beingdeclaredurbanizedand of being in the developmentzone, the pertinentfindings returned by the Reference Court are as under Aw "94. Land ofpetitioneris agriculturalland althoughit is ^ in urbanized area and in development zone. The land continued to be agriculturalland even till issuance of Notificationunder Section 4 of LA 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 would negatepossibilityofland in questionhaving potentialfor buildingsiteeven in nearfuture.

¶95The petitioner has broughtno evidence, leave aside documentaryevidencethat the acquiredland was suitable LA.App. No. 115/2011 &connectedAppealsofVillageBamnoli Page5gf15 for puttingup buildings, he they residentialor commercial or industrialas the case may he. There is no building activitystartedon the landin questioneven afterpassingof a decadesincearea was urbanized."

¶8On the question of potentialityof the acquired land, Reference Courthas talcen note ofthe fact that this acquiredland is surroundedon al) four sides by Villages-Bharthal, Bijwasan,Pochanpurand Dhul Siras. Noticingthat acquired land is in the vicinityof Dwarka, where DDA is developingcolonies and therefore,adoption of the minimum ratesfor agriculturalland fixed by the GovernmentofDelhi by the Land AcquisitionCollectorwas not justified.Upon consideringthe two sale instancesof25'" October,2004 (Ex.R-1)and of20'" April. 2004 (Ex.R- -) ofthis very village,ReterenceCourt had discardedthe sale instance (Kx.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,I08 which was found to be comparable.

¶9In the instantappeals, it was vehementlyurged on behalfof the appellantsthat the effectofNotificationof24'" October,1994 declaring the acquired lands being fit for urbanizationand Notificationof le"* October.2000 regardingthe changeofland use underthe MasterPlanof Uelhi has not been consideredby the ReferenceCourt to appreciatethe V .iue potentialofthe acquiredland.Reliancewas placedupondecisionof llie Apex (,ourt in SpecialLandAcquisitionOfficer&Anr vs. MK. Rafi,SaHet,(2011)7SCC 714, by learnedcounselfor the appellantsto contend that in view of the aforesaidNotifications,the acquiredland cannotbe treatedas an agriculturalland for determinationofits market value.

¶10Aforesaidcontentionis noticedfor beingoutrightlyrejectedas the M5,20n&co","edAppea."fvi".geBa™",i m acquired lands may not to be termed as agriculturalland but they were ceitdinlyundeveloped.Government'sminimumrates for the agricultural land applicableto Delhi have been rightly discarded by the Reference Couit. So, reliance placed upon M.K. Rafiq Saheb (supra), is clearly misplaced,as the ReferenceCourt has determinedthe market value of the acquiredland whilerelyinguponasale exemplarofthis veryvillage.

¶11There is no questionof discardingthe aforesaidNotifications.In fact, inspiteof the aforesaidNotificationsno developmentactivitywas there on the acquiredlands as no pennissionwas soughtby the owners ofthe acquiredlands underDelhi DevelopmentAct and therefore,it can be safely concludedthat the acquired lands were undevelopedand the same could not be comparedwith developedlands for determiningthe maiket value of the acquired land. Thus, relianceplaced by appellant's counselupon UdhoDass vs. StateofHaryana&Ors., 2010 (9) SCALE 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 learnedcounselfor the appellantsby contendingthatthe acquiredland is fully comparable with the aforesaid land and is in proximity and therefore,the marketvalueofthe acquiredland oughtto have been fixed with referenceto the auctionrates ofthe Delhi DevelopmentAuthority. \ Reference Court has not only relied upon tlie 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 distinguish the decisionofthe Apex Court in Lai Chand(supra),whose ratio squarely

1.A.APP.No. 1,5/2011&connectedAppeal,ofVillageBamndi Page7"f,5 m applies to the ittstantcases. Therefore,Ifind that the ReferettceCourt as nghtlyreusedto apply Delhi DevelopmetttAuthorityauctionrates foi determniingthe marketvalueofthe acquiredland. Whilereiteratingthe well settledprincipleoflawthatcomparable •sale instance,,,are the best piece of evidenceto be consideredby the Court foi the purposeofdeterminingthe compensation,Apex Court in •ts recent decision in RaMa MudalfyarVs. SpecialTahsil4ar(Land Ac"n Tamil Nadu Housing Board) (2010) 13 SCO 384 has observed as under-- contemplatedunder SeLn KanwarSinghvs. UnionofIndia." ^

¶14Fixationofthe marketvalue ofthe acquiredland on the basisof ^ of the •-ugh. by the appellantsstands rightly rejected by the Reference urt as ,e sale instancesofthis very villageare available.When it is villagi"

¶15On the aforesaidreasoning,adoptionofthe L&DOratesto fix the va ue of the acquiredlandssoughtby the appellartsis outrightly '.AA",N".n5/20"^c"""ec.edApp.3""fv,,",eB™""" Court in Kiran Tandon vs. AllahabadDevelopmentAuthority,(2004) 10 see 745 and in Valliyammaland Anr kv. Special Tehsildar (Land Acquisition) and Anr., AIR 2011 SC 2937 to assert that deduction of 40% towards developmentchargeswas improperand where large area, not fully developed, is acquired, normally, deduction of 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-1/14)would arise only when sale instance (Ex.R-1) is found to be not comparable. Therefore, referenceto the aforesaiddecisionsby learnedcounselfor the appellants is of no consequence.

¶16During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the appellants had stronglyrelied upon the instanceof allotmentof 14.5 hectares(37 acres approximately)by Delhi DevelopmentAuthority to the Power Departmentof Delhi Governmenton leaseholdbasis at a consideration of ^297.42 lacs per acre with 2.5% annual ground rent to claim enhancementof compensationat the rate of^40 lacsper acre over and abovethe marketvalue fixed by the ReferenceCourt as the allotmentof the aforesaidland was out ofthe acquiredland. With much vehemence, H it was asserted by 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 tlie Respondentsthat aforesaidallotment by Delhi DevelopmentAuthorityto Power Departmentof Government I.A.App.No, 115/2011&connectedAppealsofVillageBamnoli of Delhi was made in November, 2007 and the possession of the aforesaidland was handedoverto the PowerDepartmentof Government ofDelhi in February,2008 and the acquisitionofthe land in questionis of November, 2004 and during the interveningperiod land rates had steadily increased and therefore, aforesaid allotment cannot be made the basis to determine the market value of the acquired land as the interveninggap is of three years.

¶18The factors to be considered to determine the market value of the acquiredlands as reiteratedby the Apex Court in GeneralManager,Oil and Natural Gas CorporationLtd vs. Rameshbhai Jivanbhai Patel and Anr, (2008) 14 SCC 745, are as under:- "13. Primarily, the increase in land prices depends on fourfactors:situationofthe land, natureofdevelopmentin sw roundingarea, availability^of 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 he slow, steady and gradual, withoutany suddenspurts orjumps. On the other-hand, in urban or semi-urbanareas, where the development isfaster, where the demandfor landis high andwherethere is construction activity.'all 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 -<^1 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, 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 about 10% to 15%)per annum., the correspondingincreasesin rural areas wouldat I.A.App.No, 115/2011&conneciedAppealsofVillageBamnoli Page ^^15 best be only aroundhalfofit;that is about 5% to 7.5%per annum. This rule of thumb refers to the general trend in the nineties, to be adoptedin the absenceofclear and specific evidence relating to increase in prices. Where there are specialreasonsfor applyinga higher rate of increase, or any specific evidence relating to the actual increase in prices, then the increaseto be appliedwoidddependupon the same.

¶15Normally, recourse is taken to the mode of determining the market value by providing appropriate escalationover theprovedmarketvalue of nearbylands in previous years (as evidenced by sale transactions or acquisitions), where there is no evidence of any contemporaneous sale transactions or acquisitions of comparablelands in theneighbourhood.The said methodis reasonably safe where the relied-on sale transactions/ acquisitionsprecede the subjectacquisitionby only afew years, that is uptofour tofiveyears. Beyondthat it may be unsafe, even ifit relatesto a neighbouringland. What may be a reliablestandardifthe gap is only afew years, may become unsafe and. unreliablestandardwhere the gap is larger. For example,for determiningthe marketvalueofa land acquired in 1992, adopting the annual increase methodwith referenceto a sale or acquisitionin 1970 or 1980 may have many pitfalls. This is because, over the course ofyears, the "rate" ofannual increase may itself undergo drastic change apart from the likelihood of occurrenceof varyingperiods of stagnation in prices or sudden spurts in prices affecting the very standard of increase. " \

¶19Being mindful of the ratio of the decisionof the Apex Court in ONGC (supra), I find that the instance of institutional allotment (EX.PW13/1) of the year 2007 heavily relied upon by the appellants 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 relevantperiodofthis veryvillagein questionis •A.App.No. I15/2011&connectedAppealsofVillageBamnoli Page,, \ appellantsfor leading rebuttal evidence was rejectedby the Reference Conrt.nothinghad stoppedthem from movingan applicationfor leading additionalevidencein the appeal to lead evidencein orderto demolish the sale instance (Ex.R-l). Not only this, even during the course of hearmg,nothingwas urgedto showas to how the sale instance(Ex.R-l) IS not genuine/reliableor comparable.

¶23In the light of the evidence on record,I am of the considered opinionthatthe ReferenceCourthas nghtlyrelieduponthe sale instatrce (hx.R-1)to determinethe marketvalueofthe acquiredlands.Findirrgno mem mthe instantappealsofclaimantsand cross-objectionby one of them, the sameare dismissedwhileleavingthe partiesto beartheirown costs. 24^ So far as appeals of the Respondentsare concerned,Ifind no SU stancein them, becausethe determinationofthe marketvalueofthe acquiredland by the ReferenceCourthas been donewhilerelyingupon - sa emstance (Ex.R-l) produced by the Respondentsthemselves egardingdoingaway ofthe classificationofthe acquiredland into 'A' bloc and -B-Block by the ReferenceCourt is conceded,Ifind that c ssifi ^ r.T! r" """" •• "•-—" •*. ine land with top soil. s carrrr ca egoiy land, my esteemed brother Pradeep Nandrajog,J i" ^ -centdecision in LA.App.No.266/2008.titledas JalStn,,SOr. .s renderedon .3^^August20n,wlre,vingi: cecsion of the Division Bench of this court in Ga/raJslngh vs umonofMia.2006(VI)AD Delhi 13, has held as under.- 'a.a".No. ,,5/20,,4 Appeals"fv,NageBa"."",| 1\ "56. In GajrajSingh'scase (supra), the price differential worked out was ^25,000/- 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 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 thus hold that Gajraj Singh's case should be my guiding star for price differential in the instant cases as well and thus1holdthat whereverCategory 'A ', Category 'B and Category 'C have to be differentiatedon price, the differential should be 2.5%. "

¶26Consequentially,the findingofthe ReferenceCourtregardingthe 'A' categoryand 'B' categoryland beingsimilarlysituatedhavingsame potentialityand becausethey are acquiredfor the same publicpurpose, cannot be sustainedin the light of the aforesaidobservations.However, ihe claim of the Union of India, to seelc adoption of the minimum i.idicativeprice of agriculturalland in Delhi while forgettingthat the Appellant-UOI itselfhas relied upon tlie sale instance(Ex.R-1),merits rejection.

¶27In viewoftheafore-goingnarration,Ifind thatno substancein the appeals filed by claimantsas well as in cross objectionof one of the 4^^ claimantsand the same are dismissed. So far as the appeals filed by Union ofIndia are 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?17,45,000peracreto?l7,01,375/-peracre.

¶28Beforepartingthis order,1would like to bring on recordthat the brevity of this order is occasioned by the fact that the impugned .ludgraentis well consideredon facts and the law. Therefore,I have I.A App, No. II.TOOII&corinccledAppealsofVillageBamnoli p purposeftllynot adverted to the entire evidence on record and the -levant ev.dence, i.e. of the sale exemplars has been talcen into considerationby me in this order.

¶29The above captionedappealsand cross-objectionare disposedof w.t directionto the Registryto remitthe compensationamount,ifany depositedby eitherside with the RegistrarGeneralofthis Court,to the' concerned Reference Court. -VAPP N", 1,5,20,1 Appeal,ofVillage JNIL GAUR) February01, 2012 JUDGE pJ<:b/rs Page IS of 15

$-12 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + LA.APP. 22/2012 & CM No. 1588/2012 (Stay) UNION OF INDIA . Appellant Through Mr. Yeeshu Jain, Advocate % versus BALJEET & ORS Respondent Through Mr. S. K. Sethi, Advocate for DDA CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR