Ram Kishan v. Union of India & Anr

ORDER 0L02.2012 For orderssee LA.App.No.l15/2011,titledas JaiPrakashvs. UnionofIndia & A nr. FEBRUARY 01,2012 pkb 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. * % IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reseryed on: Januaty 12, 2011 Pronounced on: February 01, 2012 + LA.APP. 11 )/2011 (VILLAGE BAMNOLf) JAIPRAKA UNION OF SH Appellant Through: 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 forrespondenton R-79) versus NDIA& ANR. Respondents rhrough: Mr.Sanjay Poddar, Senior Advocate with Mr.Sanjay Pathalc, 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;'75-8l',113-123 Mr.Arun Birbal, Mr.BanlceyBihari Sharma, Ms.Amita Singh, Mr.S.K.Sethi and Mr.Kunal Sharma,Advocatesfor DDA in (R-74-77& 80) Mr.MohinderSinghCharak,Advocate(R-63 and 112) LA.APP. 16/2011 I.A.APP. 19/2011 I.A.APP. 22/2011 LA.APP. 90/2011 lA.APP. 93/2011 AND LA.APP. 17/2011 I.A.APP. 20/2011 LA.APP. 23/2011 LA.APP. 91/2011 LA.APP. 94/2011 LA.APP. 18/2011 LA.APP. 21/2011 LA.APP. 24/2011 LA.APT. 92/2011 LA.APP. 95/2011 LA.App. Na. 115/2011 & connected Appeals of Village Bamnoli % a I 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. 5/2011 7/2011 1/2011 4/2011 8/2011 6/2011 2/2011 4/2011 7/2011 0/2011 3/2011 275/2011 293/2011 304/2011 307/2011 310/2011 313/2011 316/2011 319/2011 325/2011 355/2011 358/2011 36^/2011 492/2011 49^/2011 499/2011 503/2011 506/2011 513/2011 5731/2011 516/2011 592/2011 196/2011 280/2011 283/2011 287/2011 LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APF. 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. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APR 166/2011 170/2011 173/2011 176/2011 183/2011 189/2011 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.AJPP. 321/2011 LA.APP. 354/2011 LA.APP. 357/2011 LA.APP. 363/2011 LA.APP. 491/2011 LA.APP. 494/201L 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.AF'P. 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 I^otificationNo.9(50)/2004/L&B/LA/13211of 04.11.2004 issuedunderSection4ofthe LandAcquisitionAct, 1894 & AwardNo. 1/2007-2008of06.08.2008,VillageBamnoli,NewDelhi) LA.App.No. 115/2011& connectedAppealsofVillageBairmoli % CORAM: HON'BLE

¶1Abo\ of about Planned De under the L the Referen the rate of the consent MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR ORDER

01.02.2012 e captionedappealsand cross-objectionsrelateto acquisition 00 bighas of land in Village:Bamnoli, Delhi notified for velopmentof Delhi vide Notificationof 4^*^ November,2004 and RequisitionAct, 1894 and since the impugnedorder of :e Court in these appeals uniformlygrants compensationat fl7,45,000per acre with statutorybenefits,therefore,with of learned counsel for the parties, who were presentat the final hearing, these matters were heard together and are being adjudicated

¶2Land -upon by this common order. AcquisitionCollectorwhilerelyinguponthe indicativeprice fixed by Governmentof NCT of Delhi for agriculturalland in Delhi for the periodin question,had determinedthe marketvalue ofthe acquired land in questionat the aforesaidrate of?15,70,000/-peracre ofleveled land in Block A, whereas for the.acquiredland excavatedbeyond one meter, i.e., 31ock B land, compensationwas determinedat the rate of ?14,13,000/-per acre.

¶3Not Satisfied with the aforesaid Award of Land Acquisition Collector, b . upon Notifi Corporation instant vill: Notification fore the Reference Court, appellants/claimantshad relied cation of 24^'^ October, 1994 issued by the Municipal of Delhi declaring the land ia 20 villages including the ge to be urbanized. Rehance was also placed upon of 16^*^ October, 2000 declaringchange of land use of the acquiied land in questionand thereupon,Delhi DevelopmentAuthority Zonal DevelopmentPlan for DwarkaSub City in D^varka, had preparec L.A,App.No. 115/2011 & connectedAppeals of Village Bamnoli New Delhi. ,

¶4While relying upon seven,sale instances(Ex.PW-1/7to Ex.PW-. 1/13)ofthe year 1999,relatingto agriculturalland in VillagePochanpur purchased by a religious society - Rgdha.SwamiSatsang, Beas, and certifiedcopy of Sale Deed of 27^'' 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 effectthat location,potentialand utilityofthe land in the VillagesofBharthal,Pochanpurand Bamnoliis similarand not to rely upon the aforesaid sale instances as the Sale his very village was available. had chosen instance of t

¶5In the absence of the evidence of the Vendor/Vendeeof the aforesaid sale instances,Reference Court had discardedthe aforesaid sale instancesreliedupon by the appellants/claimants,whileadvertingto paragraphno: 29 ofthe Apex Courtdecisionin Lai Chandvs.. Unionof 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 commercial placing imp (supra) to h applied wh plots or the scheduleof market rates for Vasant Vihar by icit reliance upon the Apex Court decision in Lai Chand old that market price for the developed land cannot be le determining the market price of the agricultural land in Delhi. I

¶6To fortifythe aforesaidfinding,ReferenceCourt has extensively quotedthe passagesfrom the Apex Courtdecisionin Lai Chand(supra) and thereafter,had proceededto discardheavilyreliedupon instanceof

14.5 acres of the acquired land by Delhi Development ;he PowerDepartmentofGovernmentofNCT ofDelhi for undeveloped allotment of Authority to LA^App.No. 115/2011& onnectedAppealsof VillageBamnoii constmctio: holding as under:- 1 of 715 Mega Watt Gas Based Pov\^er Plant/Project,while '77. ^297 Buye The allotmentof1.5 hectareoflandfor apremiumof 42 lakh per acre is an inter departmental allotment. ^ 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_ prem'.umforallotmentofland indevelopmentarea is notan ordinarysale betweenaprudentbuyerandseller.Premium of la] price id in such an allotment cannot be called the market of land which a prospectivebuyer of similar land sittingin his armchairwouldbe willingtopay.

¶75date

04.11 under consii Notifi the G Moreover,there is a time gap bf threeyears between of Notificationunder Section 4 of LA Act which is 2004 and date of allotment which is 25.11.2007. Marketprice of land allottedafter 3 years ofNotification Section of LA Act cannot be taken into ierationfor determining,marketvalu^ on the]dateof nation under Section 4. As per Section24 of LA Act, lurt shall not take into considerationany increaseto the value ofthe landacquiredlikelyto accruefrom the use to wh. ch it will beput when required. "

¶7On the aspectofthe acquiredlandbeingdeclaredurbanizedand of being in the Reference C "94. developmentzone, the pertinentfindings returned by the Durt are as under 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 country having explosive population, no residential colony, ^ed or unapprovedcame up on the land in question would negatepossibilityof land in questionhaving alfor buildingsite everi innearfuture.

¶95The petitioner has broughtno evidence, leave aside ^ntary evidence that the acquired land was suitable appro^ and it potent} docum LA.App.No'. 115/201]& connected Appeals of Village Bamnoli \\ for putting up buildings, be they residentialor commercial or indu activity strial as the case may be. There is no building startedon the landin questioneven afterpassingof a decade since area was urbanized.

¶8On 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 rates for agriculturalland fixed by the GovernmentofDelhi by the Land AcquisitionCollectorwas not justified.Upon consideringthe two sale October,2004 (Ex.R-1)and of20"' April, 2004 (Ex.R-village,ReferenceCourt had discardedthe sale instance le considerationof ^9,02,496per acre was found to be had chosen to rely upon the sale instance (Ex.R-1) consideration of ?17,45,,108 which was found to be instances of 25 2) of this very (Ex.R-2) as sa depressed and depicting sale comparable.'

¶9In the ir appellants that -Stant appeals, it was vehementlyurged on behalf of the the effectofNotificationof24"' October, 1994 declaring Ih the acquired lands being fit for urbanization^and Notificationof 16 October,2000 regardingthe changeoflanduse underthe MasterPlan of Delhi has not been consideredby the ReferenceCourt to appreciatethe true potentialofthe acquiredland. Reliancewas placedupon decisionof the Apex Court in SpecialLandAcquisitionOfficer•& Am vs', MJL RafiqSaheb,(2011)7SCC 714, by learnedcounselfor the appellantsto contend that ir view of the aforesaidNotifications,the acquired land cannotbe treatedas an agriculturalland for determinationof its market value.

¶10Atoresaidcontentionis noticedfor beingoutrightlyrejectedas the A.App.No.115/201] & connectedAppealsofVillageBamnoli \V acquiredlands may not to be termed as agriculturalland but they were certainlyundeveloped.Government'sminimumrates for the agricultural land applicableto Delhi have been rightly discardedby the Reference Court. So, reliance placed upon M.K. Rafiq Saheb (supra), is clearly misplaced,a:; the ReferenceCourt has determinedthe market value of tjie acquired

¶11There be safely con and whilerelyinguponasaleexemplarofthis very village, is no questionof discardingthe aforesaidNotifications.In fact, inspite(ifthe aforesaidNotificationsno developmentactivitywas there on the acquiredlands as no pemission,was soughtby the owners ofthe acquiredlands underDelhiDevelopmentAct and therefore,it can eluded that the acquiredlands were undevelopedand the same could not be comparedwith developedlands for determiningthe market value counsel upon ofthe acquiredland. Thus, relianceplaced by appellant's 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 acquiredlandoughtto have been fixed with referenceto the auctionrates ofthe DelhiDevelopmentAuthority. ReferenceCourthas not only relieduponthe decisionofApex Court in 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 £,re undisputedlyundeveloped. At the hearing in these appeals, learn^sd counsel for the appellant could not distinguish the decision of the Apex Court in Lai Chand(supra),whose ratio squarely ..A.App, No. 115/2011 & cor nectedAppealsofVillageBamnoli' Page? of 15 applies to th(; instant cases. Therefore,I find that'the Reference Court has rightlyrefusedto applyDelhi DevelopmentAuthorityauctionrates for determiningthe marketvalueofthe acquiredland.

¶13Whilereiteratingthe well settledprincipleoflaw that comparable sale instances Court for the its recent dec Acquisition 'j observed as uj , are the best piece of evidence to be consideredby the purpose of determiningthe compensation,Apex Court in ision in 'RadhaMudaliyar Vs. Special Tahsildar(Land amil Nadu Housing Board) (2010) 13 SCC 384 has ider:-

¶13Comparablesales instancesare the safestmethodfor determiningthe market value ofthe acquiredland and as laiddavn in ShajiKuriakosev. Indian Oil Corpn. Ltd., it should^atisfy thefactors, inter alia (1) the sale must be genuine^ transaction; (2) the sale deed must have been executedat the time proximate to the date of issuanceof notifica.ion underSection4 of the Act; (3) the landcovered by the s^le must be in the vicinityofthe acquiredland; (4) the land^coveredby the sale m.ustbesimilarto the acquired landand (5) size oftheplotofthe landcoveredby the sale be comparableto the acquired land The sales instances shouldjDreferablybe closest to the date of notificationas then alcne it wouldsatisfythe touchstoneof theprinciples contemplated under Section 23 of the Act, as held in Kanwar

¶14Fixation

¶15On the a market value o Singh vs. Union ofIndia. of the market value of the acquired land on the basis of the sale instances(Ex.PW-1/7to Ex.PV/-l/14)of the adjoiningvillages, as sought by the appellants stands rightly rejected by the Reference Court as the sale instancesof this very village are available.When it is so, then there is no need to look for,the sale instancesof the adjoining villages. iforesaid reasoning, adoption of the L&DO rates to fix the )fthe acquiredlands soughtby the appellantsis outrightly rejected. Appellants' counsel had relied upon decision of the Apex I.A.App.No. 115/2011 & connectedAppealsof VillageBamnoli PageSofIS Court in Kiriin Tandon vs. AllahabadDevelopmentAuthoruy, (2004) and in Valliyammal and Anr vs. Special Tehsildar (Land and Anr., AIR 2011 SC 2937 to assert that deduction of developmentchargeswas improperand where large area, sloped, 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 requirementqf consideringthe applicabilityof 10 see 745 Acquisition) 40% towards, not fully dev permissible, obviated in v: are available the sale instances(Ex.PW-1/7to; Ex.PW-1/14)would arise only when ,(Ex.R-l) is found to be not comparable. Therefore, sale instance referenceto the aforesaiddecisionsby learnedcounselfor the appellants jquence. 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 a,t a consideration of ^297.42 lacs per acre with 2.5% annual ground rent to claim enhancement(Df compensationat the rate ofX,40 lacsper acre over and above the marketvalue fixed by the ReferenceCourt as 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 1 the aforesaid land allotted to Power Department of is of no conse

¶16During allotment is compensation be at par wit Government of Delhi.

¶17To meet the aforesaidstand ofthe appellants,it was pointed out by learned senior counsel for the Respondentsthat aforesaidallotment by Delhi DevelopmentAuthorityto Power Departmentof Government LA.App. No. 115/201] & corinectedAppealsof VillageBamnoli of Delhi wa5 made in November, 2007 and the possession of the aforesaidlane! was handedovertothe PowerDepartmentofGovei'nment ofDelhi in F(;bmary,2008 and the acquisitionofthe land in questionis , 2004 arid during the interveningperiod land rates had ised 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. 18-The factors to be considered to determine the market value of the 3as reiteratedby the Apex Courtin GeneralManager,Oil las Corporation Ltd vs. Rameshbhai Jivanbhai Patel and 4 see 745, are as under:- of November steadily incre; acquired land and Natural < Am, (2008) 1 "13. four fac surrouh rimarily, the increase in land prices depends on tors: situation of the land, nature ofdevelopmentin ding area, availabilityof landfor developmentin the area, and the demandfor land in the area. In rural areas, unless there is anyprospect of developmentin the vicinity, increase in prices would be slow, steady and gradual, withoutany suddenspurts orjumps. On the other hand, ir. urbanorsemi-urbanareas, where the development , wherethe demandfor land is high and where there '^uction activity all around, the escalation in market at a much higher rate, as compared to rural areas, pocketsin big cities, due to rapiddevelopmentand high demand for land, the escalations in prices have even 30% to SOYo or more per year, during the isfaster is const price is In some touched nineties

¶14C there w n the other extreme, in remote, rural areas where as no chance of any developmentand hardly any buyers, thepricesstagnatedfor years or rose marginallyat a nomiral rate of 1% or 2% per annum. There is thus a significantdifferencein increasesin marketvalue of lands in urbar/semi-urbanareasandincreasesin marketvalueof the rural areas. Therefore,ifthe increase in market urban/semi-urbanareas is about 10% to 15^per 'he corresponding increases in rural areas would at lands in value in annum. LA.App. No. 115/2011 & co inected Appeals of Village Bamnoli 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 then the increase to be applied,would depend upon e. prices, the sam

¶15determ Normally, recourse is taken to the mode of ning the market value by providing appropriate escalation over theproved 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-on sale transactions/ acquisiUonsprecede the subject acquisition by only a few years, that is uptofour tofive years. Beyond that it may be even if it relates to a neighbouring land. What may liable standard if the gap is only a few years, may unsafe and unreliable standard where the gap is For example,for determiningthe marketvalue of a unsafe, be a re becom.e larger. land acquired in 1992, adopting the annual increase with reference to a sale or acquisition in 1970 or 'ay have many pitfalls. This is because, over the of years, the "rate" of annual increase may itself undergo drastic change apart from the likelihood of nee of varying periods of stagpaation in prices or spurts in prices affecting the very standard of method 1980 rr course occurre sudden increase.

¶19Being rlindful of the ratio of the decision of 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 would not be a useful guide to determine the market value of the land in question, as tl from the date le said allotment was made after a period of three years of acquisition of the land in question. It is so said because the sale exemplarof the relevantperiodof this very village in questionis LA.App.No. 115/2011 & connected Appeals of Village BainnoJi \ available. Therefore, the aforesaid instance of allotment of land to the PowerDepartmentof Governmentof Delhi has been rightlyrejectedby the Reference Court. vhat is required to be considered is whether the sale instance

¶20Now (Ex.R-1)reliedupon bythe ReferenceCourtis a comparableinstanceor edly, sale instance(Ex.R-1)is cf this very villageand is of 04 whereas the land in question was acquired vide of November, 2004. Evidently, aforesaid sale instance (Ex.R-1)is not only relevantbut is comparableas it has not been shown by the appellantsas to what are the distinguishingfeatureswhich \;vou]d make it inapplicableto determinethe marketvalueofthe acquiredlands. Findingofthe ReferenceCourtthat when the sale instance(Ex.R-1)was exhibitedno objectionwas raisedby the claimantsand as per section51-Acquisition Act, 1894, certified copy of a registered not. Undispu October, Notification A of Land . document is acceptable in evidence and since this document has been tenderedin evidenceby the Respondents,the same can be read against them, remains unimpeachable.

¶21However,to meet the aforesaidfindingof the ReferenceCourt, it was submittedby learnedcounsel for the appellantsthat opportunityto lead rebuttaleividenceto show that sale instance(Ex.R-1)is not reliable or bona fide, £.n application to lead rebuttal evidence was filed before the 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 demolish aforesaid sale instance (Ex.R-1). .22. First of aforesaid sale face the leiga LA.App. No. 115/2011 & co all, appellants ought to have objected to the exhibition of instance (Ex.R-1). Having not done so, appellants have to 1 consequences. Secondly, even if application of the nnected Appeals of Village Bamnoli .appellantsfor leading rebuttal 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, ieven during the course of hearing,nothingwas urgedto show as to how the sale instance(Ex.R-1) is not genuine/reliableorcomparable. light of the evidence on record, I arn of the considered sale instance

¶23In the opinionthatthe ReferenceCourthas rightlyreliedupon the (Ex.R-1)to determinethe marketvalueofthe acquiredlandLFindingno merit in the them, the san costs.

¶24So far substance in acquired land block and 'B this classifica soil and the la of the land wi the land with

¶25Endorsi ''B' category recent decisio I iA.Agp.No.115/2011& CO nstant appeals of claimantsand cross-objectionby one of le are dismissedwhile leavingthe partiesto beartheir own as appeals of the Respondentsare concerned, I find no -hem, becausethe determinationof the marketvalue ofthe by the ReferenceCourthas been done whilerelyingupon the sale instance (Ex.R-1) produced by the Respondentsthemselves. Regardingdo^ng away ofthe classifickionofthe acquiredland into 'A' Block by the ReferenceCourt is concerned,I find thcJt ion has a reasonablebasis. That is to say, land with top ndwithouttop soil cannotbeputatpar as the marketvalue thouttop soil is bound to be lesser than the market value of op soil. ng the pricedifferentiationbetv/een'A' categoryland and land, my esteemed brother Pradeep Nandrajog, J., in a 1in LA.App.No.266/2008,titledas Jai Singh & Ors. a &Ors., renderedon 23'"''August2011, whilerelyingon the decision of the Division Bench of this court in Gajraj Union oflndli, 2006 (VI) ADDelhi 13, has held as under:- nnected Appeals of VillageBamnoli Ptige 113 of IS

¶57I guiding well an 'B' and

¶56in GajrajSingh'scase (supra), theprice differential worked but was ^25,000/- per acre. I have noted hereinabove that the acquisition in Gajraj Singh's case pertained to the date 15.ll.lP96. In Gajraj Singh's case the priqefor 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. thus hold that Gajraj Singh's case should be my star for price differential in the instant cases as thus I holdthat whereverCategory A Category Category 'C have to be differentiatedonprice, the differential should be 2.5%." • nd

¶26Conseq 'A' category -potentiality ai cannot be sus the claim of indicative' prii Appellant - IJ rejection.

¶27In view appeals filed claimants and aentially,the findingof the ReibrenceCourtregardingthe and B' categoryland beingsimilarlysituatedhavingsame .d becausethey are acquiredfor the same publicpurpose, ained in 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 relieduponthe sale instance(Ex.R-1),merits of the.afore-goingnarration, I fmd that no substance in th by claimants as well as in cross objectionof one of the the same are dismissed.'So far as the appeals filed by ,e Union ofIndiaare concerned,the same are partly allowedto the extent that the compensationawarded by the .Reference Court W the 'B' category of lands (as noticed in the Award of the Land Acquisition Collector)is reducedfrom?17,45,000peracreto ?17,01,375/-jeeracre.

¶28Before])artingthis 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& co inectedAppealsofVillageBamnoli r)D purposefully r relevant evide consideration

¶29The abo with direction deposited by e Ot adverted to the entire evidence on record and the nee, i.e. of the sale exemplars has been taken into by me in this order. ^e captionedappeals and cross-objectionare disposedof othe Registryto remitthe compensationamount,ifany, iitherside with the RegistrarGeneralof this Court, to the concerned Reference Court. February 01, 2012 pkb/rs -A.App.No. 115/2011&connectedAppealsofVillageBamnoli JUDGE n/\

\A(0 * % 4- % IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI LA.APP. 206/2011 RAM KISHAN Through: versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR Through: Reserved on: January 12, 2012 Pronounced on: February 01, 2012 ..... Appellant Mr.B.S.Maan,Mr.AmitMaan,Mr.R.S.Verma,Mr.Jai Prakash,Ms.SmitaMaanandMr.JitinTewathia, Advocates(R-14-16,22, 30,34, 38-45,51-53) Mr.MohinderSinghCharak,Advocatefor appellantin R-112 and respondent in R-63 Mr.B.D.Sharma, Mr.S.K.Rout, Mr.B.K.Routray, Mr.VinayKumar,Advocatesin (R-84to 86, 88-102, 104) Mr.S.K.Routand Mr.B.K.Routray,Advocates (in R-74 and for respondenton R-79) Respondent Mr.SanjayPoddar,SeniorAdvocatewithMr.Sanjay Pathak,Ms.NavlinSwain,Ms.K.K.Kiranand 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.ArunBirbal,Mr.BankeyBihari Sharma,Ms.Amita Singh,Mr.S.K.Sethiand Mr.KunalSharma,Advocates for DDA in (R-74-77 & 80) Mr.MohinderSinghCharak,Advocate(R-63 and 112) CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR