Charan Singh v. Union of India & Anr

ORDER

01.02.2012 For orders see LA.App.No.115/2011,titled as Jai Prakash vj'. Union ofIndia & Anr. FEBRUARY 01, 2012 pkb IL 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. (f 1 1 * % IN THE HIGH COUR OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on: Januan' 12, 2011 Pronounced on: February 01, 2012 + LA.APP. 115/2011 (VILL AGE BAMNOLI), > ,JAI PRAICASH Through: Appellant Mr.B.S.Maan, Mr.Amit Maan, Mr.R.S.Verma. lyLr.JaiPralcash,Ms.SmitaMaan and Mr.Jidn, Tewkthia,Advocates(R-14-16,22, 30,.34,38-45,51-53), Mr.Mohinder Singh Charak, Advocate for appellantin R-112and respondentin EL-63 j Mr.B.D.Sharma, Mr.S.K.Rout, i Mr.!^.K,Routray,Mr.VinayKumar,Advocates in (R-84to 86, 88-102, 104) Mr.S.K.Routand Mr.B.K.Routray,Advocates; (in R-74 and for respondenton R-79) • versus | UNION01" INDIA&ANR. Respondents ' Through: Mr.SanjayPoddar,,SaniorAdvocatewith Mr.S^anjayPathalc,Ms.NavlinSwain, ' Ms.lt.K.Kiranand Mr.S.N.Pandey,Advocates for UOI ; Mr. YeeshuJain, Advocatefor UOI (R-1 to 5, ; 1^37,47,49,50-52,55-73,75-81,113-123'i ]VIr../^unBirbal,Mr.3ankeyBihariSharma, , Ms.AmitaSingh,Mr.S.K.Sethiand Mr.Kunal ' Sharma,Advocatesfor DDA in (R-74-77& Mr MohinderSinghCharak,Advocate(R-63 .dll2) LA.APP. 16/2011 LA.APP. 19/2011 LA.APP. 22/2011 LA.APP. 90/2011 LA.APP. 93/2011 ani LA LA I.A LA LA AND .AI^P. 17/2011 .AP|P.20/2011 AP:P. 23/2011 APP. 91/2011 APP. 94/2011 'Village Bamnoli LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. .I.A.App.No. 115/2011& connectedAppealso 18/2011 21/2011 24/2011 92/2011 95/2011 Page 1 of J15 T =s^ -- T • I T t'. ir !• 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 LA.APP. 293/2011 LA.APP. 304/2011 LA.APP. 307/2011 la;APP. 310/2011 LA.APP. 313/2611 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 LAAPP. 4_95/2011 LA.APP. 499/2011 L'AyApprsrnTImT 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. 133/2011 l|s.,APP.168/2011 L^.^P. 17272011 LA.APP.175/2011 L^.aSpP.179/2011 LA.APP. 187/2011 LA.APP. 193/2011 lA.aIpP.205/2011 LA.APP. 208/2011 l|.APP.211/2011 LA.APP.264/2011 L^^.APP.276/2011 LA.APP. 295/2011 LA.APP. 305/2011 LA.APP. 308/2011 ..APP. 311/2011 ..APP. 314/2011 LA.APP. 317/2011 LA.APP. 320/2011 LA.APP. 352/2011 LA.APP. 356/2011 L^AI^P.359/2011 .AltP. 490/2011 .APP. 493/2011 .A^P. 497/2011 •AI^P. 501/2011 AI^P. 504/2011 A^P. 507/2011 APP. 524/2011 APP. 574/2011 APP. 577/2011 APP. 645/2011 •App. 278/2011 LA.App. 281/2011 LA.App. 284/2011 LA.App. 288/2011 L^ LA tA.App,No. 115/2011&connectedAppealsof'villageBamnoli ; 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: 194/201L LA.APP. 206/2011 LA.APP.20^/2011 LA.APP. 260/2011 LA.APP. 266/2011 LA.APP. 286/2011 S 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 cLA.App. 285/2011 ^ LA.APP. 184/2011 & ; : C.M.No. 10953/2011 I (Cross-objection) (Relatingto NotificationNo.9(j50)/2004/L&B/LA/132Ilof 04 U2004 % CORAM: HON'BI.E MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR i t I ORDE

01.02.2012

¶1Above captionedappealsand cross-objectionsrelate to acquisition ! of about-2100 bighas ol land in Village Bamnoli, Delhi notified for PlannedDevelopmentof Delhi vide Notificationof 4'^ November,2004 under the Land AcquisitionAct, 1894 and since the impugnedorder of :ese appeals uniformly grants compensation at 1I 3r acre with statutory benefits, therefore,, with )uns;el for the parties, who were present at tlie •• . j Ltters were heard together and are being common order. . ' i . i

¶2Land AcquisitioinColleictorwhilerelyinguponthe indicativeprice i fixed by Governmentof T^JCT 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 the Reference Court in tt the rate of ^17,45,000 pe the consent of learned co final hearing, these mj adjudicated upon by this c land in Block A, whereas meter, i.e., Block B land, ^14,13,000/-j7eracre.

¶3Not satisfied with for the acquired land excavatedbeyond one j compensation was determined at the rate ;of the aforesaid A^^:ard of Land Acquisition Collector,before the ReferenceCourt, appellants/claimantshad reliea October, 1994 issued by the Municipal Corporationof Delhi deQ|laringthe land in 20 villages including the instant village to be u-banized. Reliance was also placed upop Notificationof le" October,2000 declaringchange of land use of the acquiredland in question and thereupon,Delhi DevelopmentAuthority had preparedZonalDevelopmentPlan for DwarkaSub City in Dwarka, upon Notification of 24 LA.App.No.]15/20'11& connectedAppeals 3f Village Bamnoli New Delhi.

¶4While relying upon seven sale instances(Ex:PW-l/7to Ex.PW-atingto agriculturalland in VillagePochanpur society - Radha Swami Satsang, Beas, arj ed pf 2t\ September,2004 (Ex.PW-1/14)of VillageBharthal,enhancementin compensationwas sought. Reference Court upon evaluationof the evidence on record concludedthat there was no evidenceto the e:fectthat location,potentialand utilityof th land mthe 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 aforesaidsale instances.Reference Court had discardedthe aforesaid ! y the appellants/claimants,whileadvertiiigto ex CourtdecisionmLai Chandvs. Union of 1/13) of the year 1999, re! purchased by a religious certified copy of Sale De sale instancesreliedupon paragraphno: 29 of the Ap India and Am\, (2009) instances(Ex.R-I and Ex.R. refused to apply Delhi E see 769. Before dealing w^th the sale -II)'ofVillageBamnoli,ReferenceCourthad 'evelopmentAuthority auction rate for the commercialplots or the scheduleof marketrates for Vasant Vihar by placingimplicitrelianceupon the Apex Court decision in Lai Chand (supra) to hold that market price for the developed land camot bq applied while determining the martlet price of the undeveloped agricultural land in Delhi.

¶6To fortifythe aforesaidfinding,ReferenceCourthas extensively :eApex Courtdecisionin LaiChand(supra) quotedthe passagesfrom th and thereafter,had proceedidto discardheavi.yreliedupon instanceof allotment of 14.5 acres of the t... - . allotment of 14.5 acres of Authorityto the PowerDep I-A.App.No. 115/20]1&connectedAppealsof'VillageBamnoli the acquired land by Delhi Development artmentofGovernmentofNCT ofDelhi for! (0 construction of 715 Meg holding as under:- "77. The allotmey, a \y^att Gas Based'Power Plant/Project,while t of1.5 hectareoflandfor 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 questionwithoutpcrrnissionofDDA in view ofSection 12 of the Delhi Development Act', 1957 determination of premiumfor allotmentofland in developmentarea isnotan ordinarysale betweenaprudentbuyejiandseller.Premium of land in such an price of land whic sitting in his armch allotment cannot be called the market h a prospectivebuyer of similar^ land lir wouldbe willingtopay.

¶78Moreover,thbreis a time gap ofthreeyears between 7 under Section 4 of LA Act which is tte \of allotment which is .25.11.2007. d allottedafter 3 years of Notification of LA Act cannot be taken into considerationfor determiningmarket value on the date of NotificationunderSection 4..As per Section24 ofLA Act, take into considerationany increaseto date of Notificatioi

04.11.2004 and dc Market price of la? under Section the Court shall not the value ofthe landacquiredlikely to accruefrom the use to which it willbeput when required."

¶7On the aspect of the being in the development Reference Court are as unc acquired land being declared urbanized and of i zone, the pertinentfindings returned by the er:- "94. Landofpetitioneris agriculturallandalthoughit is in urbanized area and in development zone. The land continued to be agriculturalland eV,zn 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, ^vqd came up on the land in question possibilityofland in questionhaving site even in mar future. approved or unappr and it would negate potential for building

¶95The petitioner documentary evidenc LA.App. No. 115/20]]& connectedAppealso has brought no evidence, leave aside e that the acquired land was suitable fVillageBamnoli Page5of IS for putting up buildings, be they residmtial or commercial or industrialas the case may he. l:jT.ere is no building activitystartedon tne landin question'evenafterpassingof a decade since area was urbanized. " I

¶8On the question of potentialityof the acquired land, Referenc^e Courthas takennote ofthe fact that this acquiredland is surroundedon ^11 four sides by Villagej —:Bharthal,Bijwasan, Pochanpurand Dhul Siras. Noticingthat acquired!land is in the vicinityof Dwarka, v/her|e DDA is developingcolories:and therefore, adoption of the minimum rates for agriculturalland fixed by the GovernmentofDelhi by the Land i not justified.Upon consideringthe two sale 20Q4 (Ex.R-1)and of20"' April, 2004 (Ex.I^- :erence Court had discarded the sale instance I tion of ?9,02,496per acre was found to be Acquisition Collector was instancesof 25^*" October, 2) of this very village,Re (Ex.R-2) as sale considers depressed and had choseQ tp rely upon the sale instance (Ex.R-1) depicting sale consideration,of ?17,45,1.08 which was found to be comparable.'

¶9In the instantappeaJs, it was vehementlyurged on behalfof the appellantsthatthe effecto:!"Notificationof 24"" October,1994 declaring the acquired lands being :5t for urbanizationand Notificationof 16"' October,2000 regardingth.j changeoflanduse underthe MasterPla,no Delhi has not been considered!by the ReferenceCourtto appreciatetl^e truepotentialofthe acquiredl^pd.Reliancewasplacedupondecisionof the Apex Court in SpecialLandAcquisUionOfficer&Anr vs. M.IL RaflqSaheb,(2011)7SCCj 714, by learnedcounselforthe appellantsto contend that in view of the aforesaidNotifications,the acquired land cannotbe treatedas an agriculturalland for determinationofits market! value.

¶10Aforesaidcontention LA.Apn is noticedfor beingoutrightlyrejectedas the D,, No. 115/20!]•& connectedAppealsofVillageBamnoli " Page 6 of]5 acquired lands may not to certainly undeveloped. Go misplaced, as the Referen the acquired land while rel be, termed as agriculturalland but they were Dvernment'sminimum rates for the agricultural land applicableto Delhi have been rightly discardedby the Reference Court. So, relianceplacec upon M.K. Rafiq Saheb (supra), is clearly i:e Court has determined the market value of 7inguponasaleexemplarofthis veryvillage'. ; 11. There is no questionofdiscardingthe aforesaidNotifications.In fact, inspiteof the aforesaidNotificationsno developmentactivitywas there on the acquiredlands as no permission,was soughtby the ov\'ners ofthe acquiredlandsunderDelhiDevelopmentAct and therefore,it caii be safely concludedthat tiie acquiredlands were undevelopedand thi same could not be comparedy/ith developedlands for determiningthe marketvalue of the acquir counsel upon Udho Dass vt 41 is of no avail.

¶12Rejection of auction rates of Dellii DevelopmentAuthority, in! Sector 20 and 22 of Dwarica,,by the ReferenceCourt, is assailed by learnedcounselfor the appillantsby contendingthatthe acquiredlandis folly comparable witlr th^ aforesaid land and is in proiimity and therefore,the marketvalue|)fthe acquiredlandoughtto havebeen fixed with referenceto the auctionratesofthe DelhiDevelopmentAuthority ReferenceCourtha. poton,yreliedupon the decisionofApex Courtin La, Chandv.. Union ofIndiaandAnr., (2009) 15 SCC 769 but has extensivelyquoted relevant passages tlrerefrotnto hold that the sale considerationof the developedlands cannotbe appliedto the acquired ands which are undisputeilyundeveloped.At the hearii,g in these appeals, learned counsel for the appellant could not distinguish the ciy-v-C

4.1 A ^ . in Lai Chand(supra),whose ratio squarely' 3d land. Thus, relianceplaced by appellant's uStateofHaryana&Ors., 2010 (9) SCALE decisionof the Apex Court LA.App.No. 115/2011&connectedAppealsof tillage Bamnoli > 1,A applies to the instant cases, therefore, I find that the ReferenceCoiut has rightlyrefusedto applyDelhi DevelopmentAuthorityauctionrates for determiningthe marketvalueofthe acquired land. |

¶13Whilereiteratingthe well settled.principleoflaw that comparable sale instances,are the best piece of evidenceto be consideredby th(; Court for the purposeof determiningthe compensation.Apex Court iri lta\MudaliyarVs. SpecialTahsildar(Lmicl Housing Board) (2010) 13 SCC 384 has its recent decision in 'Raa Acquisition Tamil Nadu observed as under:- ileS'instancesare the safestmethodfor 'ket value of the acquired land and as \uriakosev. Indian Oil Corpn. Ltd., it i-tors, inter alia (1) the sale must be the sale deed must have been proximateto the date of issuanceof notificationunderSection4ofthe Act; (3) the landcovered by the sale must be irf the vicinityofthe acquiredland: (4) the landcoveredby thesale 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 ofnotificationas then alone it wouldsUtisf);the touchstoneoftheprinciples contemplatedunder Section 23 of the Act, as held in "13. Comparable sc determining the mar laid down in Shaji K should satisfy thefa genuine transaction; executed at the time KanwarSinghvs. UnionofIndia.

¶14Fixationofthe marke:value oftlie 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 Court as tiie sale instancesoftUs very.^villageare available.When it is BO, then there is no need to look for the sale instances,ofthe adjoining villages.

¶15On the aforesaidreasol marketvalue ofthe acquired rejected. Appellants' counse •App. No. 115/2011& comiectedAppealsofV ling, adoptionofthe L&DO ratesto fix the landssoughtby the appellantsis outrightly had relied upon decision of the Apex IhgeBamnoli-PageSofIS •>; ' i Court 'vn Kiran Tandon vs. Allahabad Development Authority, 10 see 745 and in Valliyammal and Anr vs. Special Tehsildar (Lan Acquisition) and Ann, A R 2011 SC 2937 to assert that deduction 40% towards developmen not fully developed, is ac permissible. The need to charges was improper and where large aret ! quired, normally, deduction of about 33% is look for s:Me instances in the vicinity jis obviatedin view ofthe fact tjiatthe Sale instancesofthe inkantvillage are availableand so the requirementofconsideringthe applicabilityo|f -1/7 to Ex.PW-1/14)would arise only when I • • • • found to be not comparable. Therefore, ecisionsby learnedcounselfor the appellants the sale instances (Ex.PW sale instance (Ex.R-1) ij reference to the aforesaid :4i is of no consequence.

¶16During the course p had strongly relied upon t] by learned senior counsel )f hearing, learned counsel for the appellants he Instanceof allotmentof 14.5 hectares(37 acres approximately)by i]Delhi DevelopmentAuthority to the Powe Departmentof Delhi Goyernnlenton leaseholdbasis at a considerEitior of t297.42 lacs per acrk with 2.5% annual ground rent to claiir enhancementof compensationat the rate of^40 lacsper acre over aric abovethe marketvalue fix(;dijythe ReferenceCourtas the allotmento the aforesaidlandwas out oft^e acquiredland. With much vehemence it was assertedby learnedcounsel for the appellantsthat the aforesaic allotment is clearly comparable and therefore, on its basis the compensationought to be .jnh^ncedwhile treatingthe acquired^land to be at par: with the afbre^aidiland allotted to Power Departmenttif Government of Delhi.

¶17To meet the afbresd|lstjand ofthe appellants,it was pointedoJt for the Respondentsthat aforesaidallotment by Delhi DevelopmentAuthorityto Power Departmentof Government f'A-APPjNo. 115/201]&connectedAppealsof Village Bamnoli of Delhi was made in ,1November, 2007 and the possession of the aforesaid land was handed of Delhi in February, 200^ over to the Power Department of Government and the acquisition of the land in question is of November, 2004 and iiuring the interveningperiod land rates had steadily increased and ther basis to determine the intervening gap is of three

¶18The factors to be CO "13. Primarily, the four factors: situatio surrounding area, a ;fore, aforesaid allotment cannot be made the I narket value of the acquired land as the ^ears. isidered to determine the market value of the acquiredlands as reiteratec.by the Apex Courtin GeneralManager,Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd vs. Rameshbhai Jivanbhai Patel and : I Anr, (2008) 14 SCC 745, are as under:- increase in land prices depends on n of the land, nature ofdevelopmentin vailabilityof land for developmentin the area, and the demandfor land in the area. In rural areas, unless there zj any prospect of developmentin the vicinity, increase ir prices would be slow, steady and gradual, withoutany suddenspurts orjumps. On the other hand, in urbanorsemi-urbanareas, where the development isfaster, wherethe demandfor landis high andwherethere 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, thepricesstagnatedforyearsor rose marginallyat a nominalrate of 1% or 2% per annum. There is thus a significantdifferencein increasesin marketvalue oflands in urban/semi-urbanareasandincreasesin marketvalueof lands in the ruralarehs. Therefore,ifthe increasein market ding increasesin rural areas wouldat value in urban/semi-t annum, the correspon LA.App.No. 115/20]1& connectedAppealsofVillage Bamnoli Page 10 of IS 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 tc^ increase in prices. Where there are special reasons for \applyinga 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 i previous years (as iroy.edmarket value of nearby lands in evidenced by sale transactions or acquisitions), where there is no evidence of any contemporaneous sale, transactions or acquisitions of the neighbourhood: The said method is '.ere the relied-on sale transactions/ the subject acquisition by only a few comparable lands in reasonably safe wl acquisitions precede years, that is uptofour tofiveyears. Bk^ondthat it may be '\ ^tes to a neighbouringland. What may \ ird if the gap is only a few years, may unreliable standard where the gap is ,for determiningthe marketvalue ofa • 1992, adopting the annual increase methodwith referenceto a sale or acquisitionin 1970 or ' 1980 may have ma\iy pitfalls. This is because, over the \ course ofyears, the "rate" ofannual increase may itself \ undergo drastic change apart from the likelihood of | occurrenceofvaryingperiods ofstagnation in prices or '^ sudden spurts in prices affecting the very standard of \ increase." i I j

¶19Being mindful of the ratio of the decisionof the Apex Court in ONGC (supra), I find ^hat: the instance of institutionalallotmej (EX.PW13/1)of the year 200^ heavily relied upon by the appellants wouldnot beause&lguid^to determinethe marketvalueofthe landin question,as the said allotmentwas made afteraperiod of three years from the date ofacquisitionoftheland in question.It is so said because the saleexemplaroftherelf^vantperiodofthisveryvillagein questionis unsafe, even if it reh be a reliable standa become unsafe and larger. For example, land acquired in LA.App.No, 115/2011&connectedAppealsof VillageBamnoli, Page 11 of l;5 \ available. Therefore, the aforesaid instance of allotment of land to the Power Department of Goyerriment of Delhi has been rightly rejected by ; the Reference Court. | I

¶20Now what is required to be considered is whether the sale instance I (Ex.R-1) relied upon by the Reference Court is a comparable instance or not. Undisputedly, sale instance (EjfvR-l)is of this very village and is,of V' ' i October, 2004 whereas the land in question was acquired vide Notification of November, 2004. Evidently, aforesaid sale instance I ' (Ex.R-1) is not only relevant but is comparable as it has not been shown at are the distinguishing features which v/ould ermine the market value of the acquired lands. by the appellants ^s to wh make^it inapplicable to del ' Findingofthe ReferenceCourtthatwhenthe sale instance(Ex.R-1)was exhibited no objection was raised by the claimants and as per section 51-A of Land Acquisition Act^. 1894, a certified copy of a registered document is acceptable ir evidence and since this document has been tenderedin evidenceby the Respondents,the same can be read against ble. them, remains unimpeacha

¶21However, to meet tl: was submitted by learned lead rebuttal evidence to s e aforesaidfinding'of the ReferenceCourt, it counsel for the appellants,that opportunityto i ifciowthat sale instance(Ex.R-1)is not reliable or bona fide, an applicationtp|leadrebuttalevMencewas filed beforethe ReferenceCourt which was illegallyrejectedVide orderof25"' August, 2010 and therefore, this matter needs to be remanded back to the Reference Court to enable the appellantsto lead rebuttal evidence to demolishaforesaidsale instance(Ex.R-1).

¶22First ofall, appellantsoughtto have objectedto the exliibitiono aforesaidsale instance(ExR-1). Havingnot done so, appellantshave to icesl Secondly, even if appHcation of tht face the legal consequen LA.App,.No. 115/2011& connectedAppeals f Village Bamnoii It \ appellants for leading re Duttal evidence was rejectedby the Reference Court,nothinghad stoppedthem from movingan applicationfor leading « . . . ^ i additional evidence in th the sale: instance (Ex.R 5appeal to lead evidence in order to demolish 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/reliableor comparable. | '23. In the light of the evidence on record, I am of the considered opinionthatthe Referencs:Courthas rightlyrelieduponthe saleinstance marketvalueofthe acquiredlands.Findingno Is ofclaimantsand cross-objectionby one of them, the same are dismissedwhileleavingthe partiesto beartheirown costs. I I

¶24So far as appeals of the Respondentsare concerned,I find no the determinationof the marketvalue of the ence Courthas been done whilerelyingupon the sale instance (Ex.R-1) produced by the Respondentsthemselvei Regardingdoingawayofthe classificationofthe acquiredland into 'A' block and 'B' Block by the ReferenceCourt is concerned,Ifind that this classificationhas areasonablebasis. That is to say, land with tojl soilandthelandwithouttop soilcannotbe putat paras themarketvalui ofthe landwithouttop soil is boundto be lesserthanthemarketvalueo the landwithtop soil.

¶25Endorsingthe pricedifferentiationbetween'A' categoryland and Bcategory land, my esfeemedbrother Pradeep Nandrajog,J., in e (bx.R-1) to determine the merit in the instant appea substancein them, becaus acquired land by the Refer recentdecisionin LA.App. Union ofIndia& Ors., ren the depision of the Divisic No.266/2008,titledas JaiSingl^& Ors. vs\ deredon 23'"August2011, whilerelyingon MBench of this court in GajrajSingh ra.' UnionofIndia,2006(VI)Ad Delhi 13,hasheldas under:- LA.App.No.1,5/2011&=o""e«edAppealsofVillage Page 13 of 1:5 N "56. In Gqjraj Si) worked out was hereinabove that , pertained to the (da price for Categoiy acre and for Categi ^9,51,121/- per ac about

2.5% with land. T.gH's case (supra), theprice differential ^25i000/- per acre. I have noted he acquisition in Gajraj Singh's case 'e 16.11.1996. In Gajraj Singh's case the 'A "landdeterminedwas ^9,76,121/-per 'or^ 'B' land the price determined was re and the price differential comes to •eference to the price of Category 'A'

¶57I thus hold that gajraj.Singh's case should be my guidingstarfor price]differentialin '.the instant cases as well and thus I holdthat whereverCategory 'A ', Category B and Category 'C have to be differentiatedonprice, the differential should be 2\5%."

¶26Consequentially,th^ findingofthe ReferenceCourtregardingthe 'A' categoiyand 'B' categor}^land beingsimilarlysituatedhavingsame heyiare acquiredfor the same publicpurpose, lightofthe aforesaidobservations.However, of India, to seek adoption of the minimum potentiality and because t cannot be sustained in the the claim of the Union indicative"priceof agricu:turalland in Delhi while forgettingthat the Appellant-UOI itselfhas relieduponthe sale instance(Ex.R-1),merits rejection.

¶27In viewofthe.afore-goingnaixation,Ifind thatno substancein the appeals filed by claimants as well as in cross objectionof one of the claimantsand th^; same a-e dismissed. So far as the appeals filed by UnionofIndiaare concen|ed,:the same are partlyallowedto the extent that tlie compensationa^larded by the Reference Court for the 'B category of lands (as notjced in the Award of the Land Aequisitior Collector)is reducedfrom?17;45,000peracr.ton7,01,375/-pe.acr..i

¶28Beforepartingthis oUi-,Iwould like to bringon recordthat the brevity df tliis order is occasioned by the fact that the impugned judgment is well consideredon facts and the law. Therefore,I havJ lA.App.No. 115/2011&connectedAppeals0 Village Bamnoli' purposefully not adverted toIthe entire evidence on record and tlie relevant evidence, i.e. oi^ tlie sale exempl-is lias been taken intc consideration by me in this

¶29The above captioned order. ' i appeals and cross-objectionare disposedof with directionto tlieRegistryto remittHe compensationamount,ifany, depositedby eitherside with the RegistrarGenera]ofthis Court, to the concerned Reference Court. February 01, 2012 pkb/rs 'A.-App.No.'I 15/20]]& connectedAppealsofViuLgeBamnoli NIL GAUR) JUDGE

% + % IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI LA.APP. 499/2011 CHARAN SINGH Tlirough; versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR Through: Reserved on: January 12. 2012 Pronounced on: February 01. 2012 Appellant 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) Respondent 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.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) CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR