Yogesh Kumar v. Union of India & Anr

ORDER

01.02.2012 For orders see LA.App. No. 115/2011, titled as Jai Prakash vs. Union ofIndia & Anr. FEBRUARY 01, 2012 pkb rtL 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. >• * % -4-IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on: Januan^ 12, 2011 Pronounced on: February 01, 2012 LA.APP. 115/2011 (VILLAGE BAMNOLI) JAIPRAKA IJMON 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.Rbutray, Mr.Vinay Kumar, Advocates in (R-84to 86, 88-102, 104) Mr.S.K.Rout and Mr.B.K.Routray, Advocates (in R-74 and for respondenton R-79) versus NDIA& ANR. Respondents rhrough: Mr.Sanjay Poddar, Senior Advocate with Mr.SanjayPathak, Ms.Navlin Swain, Ms.K.IC.Kiranand Mr.S.N.Pandey,Advocates for UOI Mr. YeeshuJain, Advocatefor UOI (R-1 to 5, 18-37,47,49,50-52,55-73,75-81,113-123' Mr.ArunBirbal,Mi-.BanlceyBihariSharma, 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 LA.APP. 22/2011 LA.APP. 90/2011 I.A.APP. 93/2011 AND LA.APP. 17/2011 LA.APP. 20/201.1 LA.APP. 23/2011 LA.APP. 91/2011 LA.APP. 94/2011 LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. -A.App.No. 115/2011&connectedAppealsofVillageBamnoli 18/2011 21/2011 24/2011 92/2011 95/2011 .1 , , I vj, p r f V' ^ f ' t I , > ...j: r r LA.APP. 115/2011 LA.APP. 167/2011 LA.APP. qi/2011 LA.APP. 174/2011 LA.APP. 178/2011 LA.APP. 18:6/2011 LA.APP. 192/2011 LA.APP. 204/2011 LA.APP. 207/2011 LA.APP. 210/2011 LA.APP. 26B/2011 LA.APP. 275/2011 LA.APP. 293/2011 LA.APP. 304/2011 LA.APP. 307/2011 LA.APP. 310/2011 LA.APP. 313/2011 LA.APP. 316/2011 LA.APP. 319/2011 LA.APP. 325/2011 LA.APP. 355/2011 LA.APP. 358/?011 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. 133/2011 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. 352/2011 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.343i20I (^A.AW.491/201J. LA.APP. 494/20T1 LA.APP. 498/2011 LA.AiPP. 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 ^otificationNo.9{50)/2004/L&B/LA/I32nof 04 11 2004 motlZ AcqmsitionAct. 1894&AwardNo. f06.08.2008.VillageBamnoli.NewDelhi) f-A,App.No. 115/20]1&connectedAppealsofVillageBamnoli' > % CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR ORDE

01.02.2012

¶1Abov of about e captionedappeals and.cross-objectionsrelate to acquisition 00 bighas of land in Village Bamnoli, Delhi notified for PlannedDevelopmentof Delhi vide Notificationof 4^^ November,2004 under the LandAcquisitionAct, 1894 and since the impugnedOTder of the ReferenceCourt in these appealsuniformlygrants compensationat the rate of f17,45,000per 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. AcquisitionCollectorwhilerelyinguponthe 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/-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,before the Reference Court, appellants/claimantshad relied the consent final hearii adjudicated Land fixed by Go upon Notifi Corporation instant vill; Notification :ation of 24® October, 1994 issued by the Municipal of Deliii 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 preparedZonalDevelopmentPlanfor DwarkaSub City in Dwarka, !.-A.App.No. ]15/2011 & connectedAppea].sofVillageBamnoli New Delhi.

¶4While relying upon seven sale instances (Ex.PW-1/7to Ex.PW-1/13)ofthe year 1999,relatingto agriculturalland in VillagePochanpur purchased Ijy a religious society-Radha Swami Satsang, 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 utility ofthe Villagesof Bharthal,Pochanpurand Bamnoliis similarand not to rely upon the aforesaid sale instances as the Sale his very villagewas available. e absence of the evidence, of the Vendor/Vendeeof the aforesaid sale instances,Reference Court had diskrded the aforesaid sale instancesreliedupon by the appellants/claimants,whileadvertingto paragraphno: 29 ofthe Apex Courtdecisionin Lai Chandvs. Unionof India and ^nr., (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 t

¶5In th commercial placing imp plots or the scheduleof market rates for Vasant Vihar by icit relianceupon the Apex Court decision in Lai Chand^ (supra) to hold that tuarket price for. the developed land camiot be applied while determining the market price of the undeveloped agricultural land in Delhi.

¶6To fortifythe aforesaidfinding.ReferenceCourt has extensively quoted the p£: and thereafte allotment of Authority to ssagesfromthe ApexCourtdecisionin LaiChand(supra) %had proceededto discardheavilyreliedupon instanceof

14.5 acres of the acquired land by Delhi development he PowerDepartmentofGovernmentofNCT ofDelhi for «.A.A,,p.No. 115/201,&connecttdAppealsofVillageBamnoli Page 4 ofI5 constmctio holding as a of 715 Mega Watt Gas Based Pov\^er Plant/Project,while inder:- "77. t297 Buye devel quest The allotmentof1.5 hectareoflandfor apremiumof 42 lakh per acre is an inter departmental allotment ^ and seller both are agencies of state. Since no opment/constructioncan take place on the land in ion withoutpermissionofDBA in view ofSection 12 of the Delhi Development Act, 1957 determination of premiumfor allotmentoflandin developmentarea is notan ordinarysale betweenaprudentbuyerandseller.Premium of la price id in such an allotmentcannot be called the market of land which a prospectivebuyer of similar land sitiingin his armchairwouldbe willingtopay. Moreover,there is a time gap ofthreeyears between ofNotificationunder Section 4 of LA Act which is 2004 and date of allotment which is 25.11.2007. Marketprice ofland allottedafter 3years ofNotification under " • - - consii Notifi

¶78date

04.11

¶7On the being in the Reference "94. Section 4 of LA Act cannot be taken into lerationfor determiningmarketvalue on the date of cation underSection 4. As per Section24 ofLA Act, the Courtshallnot take into considerationany increaseto the valueofthe landacquiredlikelyto accruefrom the use to whichit willbeput when required." aspectofthe acquiredland beingdeclaredurbanizedand of developmentzone, the pertinentfindings returned by the Durt are as under:- Landofpetitioneris agriculturallandalthoughit is in urbanized area and in developmentzone. The land <=onmued to be: agriculturalland even till issuance of Notificationund^r 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 approvedor unapprovedcame up on the land in question ZtlTf I." potentialfor buildingsiteeven in nearfuture.

¶95The petitionerhas broughtno evidence, leave aside documentaryevidencethat the acquiredland was suitable U.App.No. 115/201]&connectedAppealsofVillageBamnoli • A3gG 5 or 15 \A N ^ tting up buildings, be they residential or commercial or industrialas the case may be. There is no building activitystartedon the landin questioneven afterpassingof

¶8On the question of potentialityof the acquired land, Reference Courthas tacennote ofthe fact that this acquiredlarid is sun'oundedon 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 Acquisition(collectorwas not justified.Upon consideringthe two sale instancesof 25^'^ October,2004 (Ex.R-1)and of 20^'^ April, 2004 (Ex.R-2) ofthis very village,ReferenceCourt had discardedthe sale instance 5ale considerationof ^9,02,496per acre was found to be d had chosen to rely upon the sale instance (Ex.R-1) e considerationof ?17,45,108 which was found to be (Ex.R-2) as : depressed ar depicting sal comparable."

¶9In the appellants tha the acquired October, 200( Delhi has not true potential the Apex Coi Rafiq Saheb, instant appeals, it was vehementlyurged on behalfofthe t the effectofNotificationof24'^' October, 1994 declaring lands being fit for urbanizationand Notificationof 16^'^ 'regardingthe changeoflanduse underthe MasterPlan of been consideredby the ReferenceCourt to appreciatethe ofthe acquiredland.Reliancewas placedupon decisionof rt mSpecialLandAcquisitionOfficer& Am vs. MJC

(2011)7see 714, by learnedcounselfor the appellantsto contendthat jn view of the aforesaidNotifications,the acquiredland cannotbe treatedas an agriculturalland for determinationofits market value.

¶10Aforesaidcontentionis noticedforbeingoutrightlyrejectedas the LA'.App,No. 115/201]& cotinectedAppealsofVillageBamnoli Page 6" of 15 acquiredlands may not to be termed as agriculturalland but they vs^ere certainlyundeveloped.Government'sminimumrates for the agricultural land applicableto Delhi have been rightly discardedby the Reference Court. So, relianceplaced upon M.IL Rafiq Saheb (supra), is clearly misplaced, a the acquired

¶11There fact, inspite there on the of the acquir s the ReferenceCourt has determinedthe market VEilue of landwhilerelyinguponasaleexemplarofthis veryvillage. is no questionof discardingthe aforesaidNotifications.In ofthe aforesaidNotificationsno developmentactivitywas acquiredlands as no permissionwas soughtby the owners 3d lands underDelhiDevelopmentAct and therefore,it can be safely concludedthat the acquiredlands were undevelopedand the same could not be comparedwith developedlands for determiningthe of the acquiredland. Thus, relianceplacedby appellant's UdhoDass V5. StateofHaryana&Ors,, 2010 (9) SCALE ail. market value counsel upon 41 is of no av

¶12Rejectionof auction rates of Delhi DevelopmentAuthority, in Sector 20 and 22 of Dwarka, by the ReferenceCourt, is assailedby learnedcounselfor the appellantsby contendingthatthe acquiredlandis fully comparable with the aforesaid land and is in proximity and therefore,the marketvalueofthe acquiredlandoughtto havebeen fixed with referenceto the auctionratesofthe DelhiDevelopmentAutliority. ReferenceCourthas not onlyrelieduponthe decisionofApex Comt in 769 but has passages therefrom to hold that the sale of the developedlands cannot be appliedto the acquired are undisputedlyundeveloped. At the hearing in these appeals, learn^ed counsel for the appellant could not distinguish the ecstonofthe Apex Courtin LaiChand(supra),whose ratio squarely 'nnectedAppealsOfVillageBamnoli extensively q consideration lands which ..A.App,No. 115/2011& CO applies to the instantcases. Therefore,I find that the Reference Court has rightlyrefusedto applyDelhi DevelopmentAuthority'auctionrates for determiningthe marketvalueofthe acquiredland.

¶13Whilereiteratingthe well settledprincipleoflaw that comparable sale instances,are the best piece of evidenceto be. consideredby the Court for the purposeof determiningthe compensation.Apex Court in its recent de Acquisition vision m Radha Mudaliyar Vs. SpecialTahsildar(Land Tamil Nadu Housing Board) (2010) ,13 SCC 384 has observed as i;nder:- "IS. Comparablesales instancesare.thesafestmethodfor determiningthe marketvalue ofthe acquiredland and as Laid down in Shaji Kuriakosev. Indian Oil Corpn. Ltd it Shouldsatisfy the factors, inter alia (1) the sale must be genuine^transaction; (2) the sale deed must have been executedat the time proximateto the date of issuanceof notificationunderSection4ofthe Act; (3) the landcovered by the sale must be in the vicinityofthe acquiredland- (4) the landcoheredby thesalemust be similarto the acquired landand (5) size oftheplotofthe landcoveredby the sale be comparableto theacquired land. The sales instances slwuldpreferablybe closestto the date ofnotificationas then alcme it wouldsatisfythe touchstoneoftheprinciples contemplatedunder Section'23 of the Act as held in SinghVS. UnionofIndia." •14. Kanwar Fixation ofthe marketvalue ofthe acquiredland on the basis of the sale instances(Ex.PW-1/7to Ex.PW-l/I4)ofthe adjoiningvillages as sought by the appellantsstands rightly rejected by the Reference Courtas the sale instancesofthis very villageare available.When it is .0 then there ,s no need to look for the sale instancesofthe adjoining villages.

¶15On the a market value o oresaidreasoning,adoptionofthe L&DOratesto fix the fthe acquiredlandssoughtby the appellantsis outrightly •gected. Appellants-counsel had relied upon decisionof the Apex I.A.APP.No. 1,5/20.,&.".",ec,edAppealsofVillageBa,p""|i % Court in Kiran Tandon V5. AllahabadDevelopmentAuthority,(2004) 10 see 745 and in Valliyammal and Anr w. Special Tehsildar (Land and Anr., AIR 2011 SC 2937 to assert that deduction, of Acquisition) 40% towards developmentchargeswas improperand where large area, ^not fully de pei-missible i^eloped, is acquired, normally, deduction of about 33% is The need to look for sale instances in the vicinity is obviatedin view ofthe fact that the sale instancesofthe instantvillage are available and so the requirementofconsideringthe applicabilityof the sale instmces(Ex.PW-1/7to Ex.PW-1/14)would arise only when 3 (Ex.R-1) is found, to be not comparable. Therefore, :he aforesaiddecisionsby learnedcounselfor the appellants sale instanc reference to is of no consequence.

¶16During had strongly of ^297.42 enhancement above the ima the aforesaid the course of hearing, learned counsel for the appellants relied upon the instanceof allotmentof 14.5 hectares(37 acres approximately)by Delhi DevelopmentAuthority to the Power DepartmentofDelhi Governmenton leaseholdbasis at a consideration lacs per acre with 2.5% annual ground rent to claim ofcompensationat thp rate of lacsper acre over and rketvaluefixed by the ReferenceCourtas the'allotmentof lanjiwas out ofthe acquiredland. Withmuch vehemence, it was asserted%learnedcounselfor the appellantsthat the aforesaid allotmern is clearly comparable and therefore, on its basis the compensatio:^-ought to be enhancedwhile treatingthe acquiredland to be at par with the aforesaid land allotted to Power Department of Governmentof Delhi. •• !

¶17To meet the aforesaidstandofthe appellants;it was pointedout by learnedseniorcounsel for the Respondentsthat aforesaidallotment by Delh, DevelopmentAuthorityto PowerDepartmentofGovernment LA.App.No.,n5/201I & cc'nnectedAppealsofVillageBamnoli of Delhi was made in November, 2007 and the possession of the aforesaidlard was handedoverto the PowerDepartmentofGovernment ofDelhiin-February,2008 and the acquisitionofthe.land in questionis of NovembeT, 2004 and during the interveningperiod land rates had steadilyincnjasedand therefore,aforesaidallotmentcannotbe made the basis to de:;ermine the market value of the acquired land as the interveninggapis of threeyears.

¶18The factorsto be consideredto determinethe marketvalue ofthe acquiredlands as reiteratedby the Apex Courtin GeneralManager,Oil Gas CorporationLtd vs. RameshbhaiJivanbkaiPateJand 4 see 745, are as under:- ' and Natural Am, (2008) "IS. Primarily, the increase in land prices depends on fourfactors:situationofthe land, natureofdevelopmentin surroundingarea, availabilityoflandfor developmentin the area, and the demandfor land in the area. In rural areas, unless there is any prospectof developmentin the vicinity;^, increase in prices would be slow, steady and ^adual, withoutany suddenspurtsorJumps. On the other hand, in urbanor semi-urbanareas, wherethe development ISfaster, wherethe demandfor landis highandwherethere IS constructionactivityall around, the escalationin market price IS at a much higherrate, as comparedto ruralareas In som^pocketsin big cities, due to rapiddevelopmentand igh demand for land, the escalations in prices have 2^1 P"'y'"'- during the

¶14On the other extreme, in remote rural areas where ere was no ehance ofany developnlentand hardly any b^ers.fu:pricesstagnatedforyearsor rosemargiZllyat anominalrate of1% or 2% per annum. There i^tZsa signifiesdifferencein increasesin marketvalueoflands ^alue ih^ urban/semi-urbanartfltZZITlT''"' annum, thecorrespondingincreasesinXr^^Z l.A,App,No. 1,5/201,&connectedAppealsofVillageBamnoll > i,A

¶19best be onlyaround half of it, that is about 5% to 7.5%per annum. This rule ofthumb 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 specialreasonsfor applyinga higher rate ofincrease, or any specific evidence relating to the actual increase in then the increaseto beapplied woulddependupon hie. prices the sai

¶15'f^ormally, recourse is: taken to the mode of deterrnining the market value by providing appropriate escalationover theprovedmarketvalue ofnearbylands in previous years (as evidenced by sale transactions or acquisitions), where there is no evidence of any conterriporaneous sale transactions•. or acquisitions of comparable lands in the neighbourhood. Thesaid method is 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 becomeunsafe and unreliablestandardwhere the gap is larger.For example,for determiningthe marketvalue ofa 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" ofamvudl increase may itself undergp drastic change apart from the likelihood of occurrenceofvaryingperiods ofstagnationin prices or suddeH spurts in prices affecting the veiy .standard of increase." , - Bemg jnindfulof the ratio of the decisionof tile Apex Court in ONGC I find that the instance of institutionalallotment (Ex.PW13/l)|ofthe year 2007 heavily relied upon by the appellants wouldnot be |a usefu|guideto determinethe marketvalueofthe land in question,as the said allotmentwas made afteraperiodof three years from the datejofacquisitionofthe land in question.It is so saidbecause the saleexemj,laroftherelevantperiodofthisveryvillagein questionis :App. No. 115/2011&connectedAppealsofVillageBamnoli Page 1] of 15 available.Therefore,the aforesaidinstance of allotmentof land to 'the PowerDepartmentofGovernmentofDelhihas been rightlyrejected!by the ReferenceCourt. | ^ ,20. Now what is requiredto be considerediswhetherthe sale instance (Ex.R-1)reliedupon by the ReferenceCourtis acomparableinstairiceor not. Undispijitedly,saleinstance(Ex.R-1)is ofthis veryvillageand is of October, 2(^04 whereas the land in qiiestion was acquired vide Notification!of November, 2004.:Evidently,aforesaid sale instance (Ex.R-1)is r^ot onlyrelevantbut is comparableas it has not been shoAvn by the appeljantsas to what are the distinguishingfeatureswhichwould make it inapplicableto determine'themarketvalueofthe acquiredlands. Findingofthe ReferenceCourtthatwhen the saleinstance(Ex.R-1)was exhibitedno .objectionwas raisedby the claimantsand as per section51- 'A of Land-'AcquisitionAct, 1894, a certified copy of a registered documentis |acceptablein evidenceand since this documenthas been tenderedmevidenceby the Respondents,the same can be read against them,remainsunimpeachable.

¶21Howeyer,to meetthe aforesaidfindingofthe ReferenceCourt,it was submittedby learnedcounsel for the appellantsthat opportunityto lead rebuttalevidenceto showthatsale instance(Ex.R-1)ij not reliable or bonafide, applicationto leadrebuttalevidencewas filJd beforethe ReferenceCourt whichwas illegallyrejected'videorderof25'" August 2010 and thdrefore, this matter needs to be remided back to the' ReferenceCow to enable the appellantsto lead rebuttal evidenceti demolishaforesaidsaleinstance(Ex.R-1). ' . 22. Pi^®'of|all,appellantsoughtto.have objectedto the exhibitionof aforesaidsaleinstance(Ex.R-1).Havingnot done so, appellant^haveti face the legal consequences. Secondly, even if application^of tl,e .A;;App.No. 115/2011ft ^.taectedAppealsofVillageBmnoli / 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, even during the course of hearing,nothingwas urgedto show as to how the sale instance(Ex.R-1) is not genuine/reliableorcomparable.

¶23In the light of the evidence on record, I am of the considered opinionthatthe ReferenceCourthas rightlyrelieduponthe sale instance (Ex.R-1)to detemiinethe marketvalueofthe acquiredlands.Findingno merit mthe instantappeals of claimantsand cross-objectionby one of them, the same are dismissedwhile leavingthe partiesto beartheirown costs.

¶24So far as appeals of the Respondentsare concerned,I find no substancein them, becausethe determinationofthe marlsetvalueofthe acquiredland by the ReferenceCourthas been done whilerelyingupon tlie sale instance (Ex.R-1) produced by the Respondentsthemselves. Regardingdoingaway ofthe classificationofthe acquiredland into 'A' block and 'B' Block by the ReferenceCourt is concerned,Ifind that this classificationhas areasonablebasis. Tkat is to say, land with top soiland the landwithouttop soilcannotbe putat paras the marketvalue ofthe landwithouttop soil is boundto be lesserthanthe marketvalueof theland withtop soil. •25. Endorsingthepricedifferentiationbetween'A' categoryland and B-categoryJand, my esteemed brother Pradeep Nandrajog,J i" a recentdecisionin LA.App.No.266/2008,titledas JaiSingh&On v. Umon ofIndia&Ors., renderedon 23^^ August2011.whilerelyingon ^e decision of the DivisionBench of this court in GaJraJSingh v. VmonofIndia,2006(VI)AD Delhi 13,hasheldas upder:- LA.APP.No. ,15/201,&connectedAppealsofVillage • \ 'N

¶56In GajrajSingh'scase (supraj, theprice differential worked out was ^25,000/- per acre. I have noted hereinahove that the acquisition in Gajraj Singh's case pertainedto the date 15.11.1996In GajrajSingh'scase the pricefor Category 'A 'landdeterminedwas t9,76,121/-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.

57.^ I thus hold that Gajraj Singh's case should be my guidmg starfor price differentialin the instant cases as well and thusI holdthat whereverChtegory 'A ', Category B andCategory'C have to be differentiated'onprice, the differential should be 2.5%. " ,

¶26Consequentially,the findingofthe ReferenceCourtregarding the 'A' categoryand 'B' categorylandbeingsimilarlysituatedhavingsame potentiality.andbecausethey are acquiredfor the same publicpurpose, cannotbe sustainedin the lightofthe aforesaidobservations.However! the claim of the Union of hidia, to seek adoption of the minimum mdicative-price of agriculturalland in Delhi while forgettingthat the Appellam-UOI itselfhas relieduponthe saleinstance(Ex.R-1),merits rejection.

¶27In viewofthe,afore-goingnarration,Ifindthatno substancein tlie , appeals filed by claimatttsas well as in cross objectionof one of the cannante and the same are dismissed. So far as the appeals filed by mon o n.a are concerned,ti,e sameare partlyallowedto tl,e extent the compensafionawarded by the Reference Court for the 'B' categoryOflands (as noficed in the Award of the Lat^d Acquisition ollector),s reducedfi-omfl7,45,000peracreto ri7 QI 375/ 90-pj " . ^ ^ per acre. brevity of ™ 'he ev,ty of this order is occasioned by the fact th«t fU • .-Smentis well consideredon facts and the law. ThereLril" fagel4oflS - qj> v purposefullynot adverted to the entire evidence on record and the relevant evidence, i.e. of the sale exemplars has been taken into consideration by me in this order.

¶29The above captionedappeals and cross-objectionare disposedof with directionto the Registryto remitthe compensationamount,ifany, depositedby eitherside with the RegistrarGeneralofthis Court, to the concerned Reference Court. February 01, 2012 pkb/rs JNIL GAUIR) JUDGE f-A.App.No. 115/2011 & connectedAppealsof VillageBamnoli

•-!= % + % IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI LA.APP. 491/2011 YOGESH KUMAR Through: 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 Charalc, Advocate (R-63 and 112) CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR