Union of India v. Randhir Singh & Anr

ORDER %

01.02.2012 For orders see LA.App. No.115/20 11, titled as Jai Prakash vs. Union of India &Anr. JUDGE FEBRUARY 01, 2012 pkb 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. I IN THE EGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on.' January 12j01I Pronounced on.' FebruaryjjQ12 LA.APP. 1 1/2O1 1 (VILLAGE BAMNOLI) JAI H . .... Appellant 'hrough: Mr.B.S.Maan, Mr.Amit Maan, Mr.R.S.Vern-ia, Mr.Jai Prakash, Ms.Smita Maan and Mr.Jitin Tewathiá; 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. VinaKumar, 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 IA & ANR. .. .. Respondents Dugh:. Mr.Sanja'.Poddar, Senior Advocate with Mr.Sanjay Pathak, Ms.Navlin Swain, Ms.K.K.Kiran and Mr.S.N.Pandey, Advocates for UOI Mr. Yeeshu Jam, Advocate for UOI (R-1 to 5, 18-37, 47, 49, 50-52, 55-73,75-81, 113-123 Mr.ArunBirbal, Mr,B ankey B ihari Sharma, Ms.Arnita. Singh,MrS.K.Sethi and Mr,Kunal Sharma, Advocates for DI)A in (R-74-77 & 80) Mr.Mohinder Singh Charak, Advocate (R-63 and 112) A N D LA.APP. 16/ LA.APP. 19/ LA.APP. 22/ LA.APP. 90/ LA.APP. 93/ 2011 LA.APP. 17/2011 01 1 LA.APP. 20/2011 01 1 LA.APP. 23/2011 '011 LA.APP. 91/2011

0.1 1 LA.APP. 94/2011 LA.APP. 18/2011 LA.APP. 21/2011 LA.APP. 24/2011 LA.APP. 92/2011 LA.APP. 95/2011 tA.A1ip.No. 115/2011 & Appeals of village Bànoli Page 1 ofI5 o LA.APP. 115/2011 LA.APP.:133/2011 LA.APP. 166/2011 LA.APP. 17/2011 LA.APP.168/2011 LA.APP. 170/2011 LA.APP. 11/2011 LA.P. 172/2011, LAAPP. 173/2011 'LA.APP. 14/2011 LAAPP. 175/2011 LA.APP. 176(2011 LA.APP. 18/2011 LA.APP. 179/21 LA.APP. 183/2011 LA.APP. 186/2011 LA.APP.187/2011 LA.APP. 189/2011 LA.APP. 12/2011 LA.APP. 193/2011 LA.APR 194/2011 LA.APP. 204/2011 LAAPP. 205/2011 LA.APP. 206/2011 LA.APP. 207/2011 LA.APP. 208/2011 LA.APP. 209/201 1 LA.APP. 21 10/2011 LA.APP. 211/2011 LA.APP. 260/201 1 LA.APP. 263/2011 LA.APP. 264/2011 LA.APP. 266/2011 LA.APP. 27/2011 LA.APP. 29/201 1 LA.APP. 276/2011 LA.APP. 286/2011 1,A.APP.304/2011 LA.APp295/2O1 1 LAAPP. 303/2011 LA.APP. 305/2011 .LA.APP. 306/2011 LA.APP. 30/201 1 LA.APP. 308/201:1 LA.APP. 309/2011 LAAPP. 310/2011 LA.APP. 31/201 1 LA.APP. 311/2011 LA.APP. 312/2011 LA.APP. 3 1/201 1 LA.APP. 314/2011 LA.APP. 315/2011 LA.APP. 3 17/20 1 LA.APP. 318/2011 LA.APP. 31 ?/2011 LA.App.325/2011 LA.APP.•2O/2O1.1 LA.APP. 321/2011 LA.APP. 35/201 1 LA.App.352/20r1 LA.APP. 354/2011 LA.APP. 358/2011 .LA.APP. 356/2011 LA.APP. 357/2011. LA.APP. 364/2011 LA.APP. 359/2011 LA.APP. 363/2011 LA.APP. 49/201 1 LAAPp. 490/2011 LA.APp;491/2011 LA.APP.495/2011 . LA.APP. 493/2011 LA.APP. 494/2011 LA.APP, 499/2011 LA.APP•. 497/2011 LA.APP. 498/2011 LA.APP. 503/2011 LA.APP. 501/2011 LA.APP. 502/2011. LA.APP.5O/2O11. LA.APP. 504/2011 LA.APp. 505/2011 LA.APP.513O1i LA.APP. 507/2011 LA.APp.512/2011 LA.APP. 524/2011 LA.Ap. 533/2011 LA.APP. 5731(20 1.1 LA.APP. 574/2011 LA.APP. 575/2011 LA.APP. 576201 1 LA.APP. 577/2011 LA.APP. 590/2011 LA.APP. 592201 1 LA.App. 19642011 LA.APP. 645/2011 LA.APP. 638/2011 LA.App. 278/2011 LA.App. 279/2011 .LA.App. 28042011 LA.App. 281/2011 LA.App. 282/2011 LA.App. 283201 1 LA.App. 284/2011 LA.App. 285/2011 LA.App. 287,12011 LA.App. 288/2011 LA.APP. 184/2011 & C.M.No.. 10953/2011 (Cross-objection) (Relating to issued under 1/2007-2008 LA.A. No. 115/2011 & otificatjon No.9(50)/2004/L&B/LA/1321 1 of 04.11.2004 ection 4 of the Land Acquisition. Act, 1894 & Award No. f 06.08.2008, Village Bamnoli, New.Delhi) mected Appeals of Village Bamñoli Pge 2 of 15 • ••;,, CORAM: HON'B.LE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL .GAUR ORDER

01.02.2012

¶1Aboe captioned appeals and cross-objections relate to acquisition of about 2100 bighas of land in Village Bamnoli, Delhi notified for Planned Development of Delhi vide Notification of 4th November, 2004 under the Land Acquisition Aclj, 1894 and since the impugned crdei of the Referene Court in these appeals uniformly grants compensation at the rate of 17,45,00O per acre with statutory benefits, therefore, with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, who were present at the • final hearing, these matters were heard together and are being adjudicated upon by this common order. Land Acquisition Collector while relying upon the indicative price fixed by Goernment of NCT of Delhi for agricultural land in Delhi for the period, in question, had determined the market value of the acquired land in quesion at the aforesaid rate of15,70,0001-'per acre of leveled land in Block A, whereas for the acquired land excavated beyond one meter, i.e., Block B land, compensation was determined at the rate of 14,13,000/- per acre.

¶3Not satisfied with the aforesaid Award of Land Acquisition Collector, b?fore the Reference Court, appellants/c1ajmarts had relied upon Notifiatjn of 24th October, 1994 issued by the Municipal Corporation of Dlhi declaring the land in 20 villages including the instant village to be urbanized. Reliance was also placed upon Notification of 16th OctQber, 2000 declaring change of land use of the • acquired land in question and thereuOn, Delhi Development Authority had prepared Zonal Development Plan for Dwarkã Sub City in Dwarka, LA.Api No. 115/2011 & connected Appeals of VilJage Bamnoli LI 1i 11-- New Delhii While relying iipon seven sale instances (Ex.PW-1/7 to Ex.PW-1/13) of the year 1999, relating toagricultural land in Village Pochanpur purchased y a religious society Radha Swami Satsang, Beas, and • certified coy of Sale Deed of 27thi Septeber, 2004 (Ex.PW-1/14) of Village Bharthal, enhancement in compensation was sought. Reference • Court upon evaluation of the evidence on record concluded that there • was no evidence to the effect that location, potential and utility of the land in the Villages of Bharthal, Pochanpur and Bamnoli is similar and had chosen not to rely upon the aforesaid sale instances as the Sale instance of this very village Was available. In the absence of the evidence of the Vendor/Vendee of the aforesaid sale instances, Reference Court had discarded the afbresaid sale instancs relied upon by the appellants/claimants, while adverting to paragraph no: 29 of the Apex Court decision in La! Chand vs0 Union of India and 14nr., (2009) 15 SCC 769. Before dealing with the sale instances (E.R-I and Ex.R-II) of Village Bamnolj, Reference Court had refused to apply Delhi Development Authority auction rate for the commercial plots or the schedule of market rates for Vasant Vihar by placing implicit reliance upon the Apex Court decision in La! Chand (supra) to hold that market price for the developed land cannot be applied while deternining the market price of the undeveloped agricultural land in Delhi. To forlify the aforesaid finding, Reference Court has extensively quoted the pisages from the Apex Court decision in La! Chand (supra) and thereafter, had proceeded to discard heavily relied upon instance f allotment of 14.5 acres of the acquired land by Delhi Development Authority to he Power Department of Government of NCT of Delhi for LA.App.No. 115/2011 & Appeals of Village Bamnoli construction of 715 Mega Watt Gas Based Power Planf/Project, while holding as under:- "77. The allotment of 1.5 hectareflandfor.a premium of 29 7 42 lakh per acre is an inter departmental allotment. Buye and seller both are agencies of state. Since no deveopment/ construction can take place on the land in ques1ion without permission of DDA in view of Section 12 of the Delhi Development Act, 1957 determination of premum for allotment of land in development area is not an ordiTiy sale between a prudent buyer and seller. Premium of land in such an allotment cannot be cal/ed thel market price of land which a prospective buyer Of similar land sitting in his armchair would b.e willing to pay

¶78Moreover, there is a time gap of three years between date of No4/ication under Section 4 of LA Act which is •

¶0411[2004 and date of allotment .which is 25.11.2007. • •Markt price of land allotted after 3 years of Notflcatidn • under Section 4 of LA •.Act cannot be taken into consideration for determining market value on the date of • Notfiation under Section .4. , As per Section 24 of LA Act, the Curt shall not take into cons ideratión any increase to the vciue of the land acquired likely to accrue from the use • to whtch it will be put whenquired."

¶7On the aspect of the acquired land being declared urbanized and of • being in the development zone, the pertinent findings returned by the Reference Court are as Under:- "94. and of petitioner is agricultural land althogh t is in urbanized area and in development zone. The land contiied to be agricultural land even till isuance of • Not Iation under 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, approked or unapproved came up on the land in question • and it would negate possibility of land in question having • potentzal for building site even in near future.

¶95The petitioner has brought novidence, leave aside documkntary evidence that the acquired land was suitable LA.APp. No. 1.15/2011 & connected Appeals of Village Bamnoli for pztting up buildings, be they residential or commercial or, i4ustriai as the case may be. There is no building activity started on the land in question even : after passing of a deccde since area was urbanized."

¶8On th~e question of potentiality of the acquired land, Refèreñce Court has then note of the fact that this acquired land is surrounded on all four sides by Villages - Bharthal, Bijwasan, Pochanpur and Dhul Siras. Noticing that acquired land is in the vicinity of Dwarka, where DDA is developing colonies and therefore, adoption of the minimum rates for agriultura1 land fixed by the Government of Delhi by the Land Acquisition ol1ector was not justifid. Upon considering the two sale instances 0fQ5th October, 2004 (Ex.R-l) and 0f20t11 April, 2004 (Ex.R-2) of this very village, Reference Court had discarded the sale instance (Ex.R-2) as sale consideration of Z9,02,496 per acre was found to be depressed and had chosen to rely upon the sa1e. instance (Ex.R-1) depicting sale consideration of. Z17,45J .08 which was found to be comparable.

9.. In the instant appeals, it was vehemently urged on behalf of the appellants that the effect of Notification of 241h October, 1994 declaring the acquired lands being fit for urbanization and Notification of 16th October, 2000 regarding the change of land use under the Master Plan of I)elhi has not been considered by the Refereice Cout' to appreciate the •true potential of the acquired laid. Reliance was placed upon decision Of the Apex Court in Special Land Acquisition Officer & Anr i's. M.K. Rafiq Saheb, '(2011) 7 SCC 714, by learned counsel for the appellants to contend that in view of the aforesaid Notifications, the aquired and cannot be treted as an agricultural land for determination of its market value.

¶10Aforesaid contenfl,, .4 V_ --

- 10' ueing outrigntiy rejected as the A.Ap.iJo, 115/2011 & Appeals of Village Baninoli tic acquired larkls may not to be termed as agricultural land but they were certainly undeveloped. Government's minimum rates for the agricultural land appIicble to De1hi have been rightly discarded by the Refèrnce Court. So, reliance placed upon M.K. Raflq Saheb supra),: is clearly misplaced, as the Reference Court has determined the market value 1 of the acquired land while relying upon a sale exemplarof this very village.

¶11There is no question of discarding the .aforesaid Notifications. In fact, inspite of the aforesaid Notifications no development activity was there on the acquired lands as no permission was sought by the owners of the acquired lands under Delhi Development Act and therefore, it can be safely concluded that the acquired lands were undeveloped and the same could not be compared with developed lands for determining the market value, of the acquired land. Thus, reliance placed by appellant's counsel upon Udho Dass vs. State of Haryana & Ors0, 2010 (9) SCALE 41 is of no a'ai1.

12.. Rejèction of auction rates of Delhi Development Authority, in Sector 20 and 22 of Dwarka, by the ReferCnce Court, is assailed by lealned counel for the appellants by contending that the acquired land is fully comparable with the aforesaid land and is in proximity and therefore, the market value of the acquired land ought to have been fixed • with reference to the auction rates of the Delhi Development Authority. Reference Court has not only relied upon the decision of Apex Court in La! Chand vs. Union of India and Anr., (2009) 15 SCC 769 but has extensively quoted relevant passages therefrom to hold that the sale ëonsideratjon of the developed lands cannot he applied to the acquireI lands which are undisputedly undeveloped. At the hearing in these appeals, learned counsel for the appellant could not distinguish the decision of the Apex Court in La! chand (supra), whose ratio quareiy LA.App. No. 115/2011 & connected Appeals of Village Bamnoli' H applies to the instant cases. Therefore, I find that the Réferénce Court has rightly refused to apply Delhi Development Authority auction. rates for determining the market value of the acquired land.

¶13While reiterating the well settled principle Of law that crnparab1e sale instances, are the best piece of evidence to be, considered by the Court for the purpose of determining the compensajon, Apex Court in its reent decision in 'Radha Mudaliyar Vs. Special Tahsildar (Land Acquisition Tamil Nadu Housing . Board) (2010) 13 SCC 384 hs Observed as under:- . "13 Coivparable sales instances are the safest method for determkning the market value of the acquired land and as laid down in Shaji Kuriakose v. Indian Oil Corpn. 1td., it should satisfy the factors, inter alia (1) the sale must be genuine. transaction,• (2) the sale deed must have been executed at the time proximqte to the date of issualice of notfIcation under Section4 of:the. Act, (3) the land covered by the ale must be in the ViCifli of the acquired land; (4) the lan covered by the sale must be similar to the acquired land an d (5) size of the plot of the land covered by the sale be coarable to the acquired land. The sales . instances should referably be closest to the date of not flcation as then alne it would satisfy the touchstone of the princzples contemplated under Section 23 of the Act, as held in KanwarSingh vs. Union ofIndia."

¶14Fixation of the market value of the acquired land on the basis of , the sale instances (Ex.PW-1/7 to Ex.PW-1/14) of the adjoining villages; as sought by the appellants stands rightly r'ected by the Reference Curt as the sale instances of this very village are available. When it is so, then there is no need to look for the sale instances of the adjoiruing villages.

¶15On the aforesaid reasoning, adoption of the L&DO rates to fix the .maket value of the acquired lands sought by the appellants is outrightly rejected. Appellants' counsel had relied upon decision of the Apex A Ap No 115/2011 & connected Appeals of village Bamnoli .1 Court in Kiran Tandon vs. Allahabad Development Authority, (2004)

¶10SCC 745 and in, Valliyammai and Anr vs. Special Tehsildar (Land Acquisition) and Anr., AIR 2011 SC 2937 to assert that deduction of 40% towards development charges was improper and 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 •obviated in view of the. fact that the sale instances of the iflstant village are available and so the requirement of considering the applicability of he sale instances (Ex.PW-1/7 to Ex.PW-1/14) wu1d arise only when H sae instanc (Ex.R-1) is found 'to' be not comparable. Therefore, reference to he aforesaid decisions by learned counel for the appellants is of no consequence. "

¶16During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the appellants • . ' had strongly relied upon the instance of allotment of 14.5 hectares (37 acres approximately) by Delhi Development AUthority to the Power Department f Delhi Government on leasehold basis at a 'consideration of Z297.42 lacs per acre with 2.5% aniival ground rent to claim enhancement of compensation at the rate of Z40 lacs per acre over and above the market value fixed by the Reference Court , as the allotment of the aforesaid land was out of the acquired land. With 'much veemenc, it was asserted by learned counsel for the appellants that the 'aforesaid allotment is clearly comparable and therefore,On its basis the' compensation ought to be enhanced while treating the' 'acquired land to be at par with the aforesaid land allotted, to Power Department 'cf Government of Delhi.

¶17To thet the aforesaid stand of the appellants, i was pointed out by learned senior counsel for the Respondents that aforesad allotment by I)elhi Devlopment Authority to POwer Department of Government L1pp.'No. 115/2011 & cnnected Appeals' of Village Bamnoli •, ' f Delhi ws made in Novemhe, 2007 and 'the possssion of the aforesaid land was handed over to the Power Department of Government of Delhi in IFebruary, 2008 and the acquisition of the land in question is of November, 2004 and during the intervening period land rates had steadily increased and therefore, aforesaid allotment cannot be made the basis to determine the marketàlue of the acquired land as the intervening gap is of three years.

¶18The fctors to be considered to determine the market value of the '8 acquired lands as reiterated by the Apex Court in General Manager, Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd vs. Ramethbhai Jivanbliai Paid and Anr, (2008) 14 SCC 745, are as under:- "13. Primarily, the increase in land prices depends on four fators: situation of the land, nature of development in surroudzng area, availability of land for development in the area and the demand for land in the area. In rural areas, unless there is any proséct of development in the vicinil, increase in prices would be slow, steady and • .: graduail, without any sudden spurts or jumps. On the other hand, in urban or semi-urba areas, where the development isfaste1, .where the demandfor land is high and where there is construction activity all around, the escalation in market price is at a much higher rate, as compared to rural areas. In • som pockets in big cities, due to rapid development and high dmand for land, the escalations 'in prices have touched even 30% to 50% or more per year, during the nineties.

¶14. (4n the other extreme, in remote rural areas 'vhere there was no chance of any 'deyeioprnent and hardly any buyers, the prices stagnated for ears or rose marginally at a nomial rate of 1% or 2% per annum. There is thus a signficnt difference in increases in market value of lands in urban/semi-urban areas and increases in market value of lands in the rural areas. Therefore, if the Increase in market value in urban/semi-urban areas is about 10% to 15% per annum, the corresponding increases in rural areas would at LA.App. No. 115/2011 & connected Appeals of Village Bamnolj Page 10 of'lS best b only around half of il, that is about 5% to 7.5% per annun. This rule of thumb refers to the general trend in the nineties, to be adopted in the absence of clear and specflc evidei'ce relating to increase in prices. Where there are specicl reasons for applying a highe; rate of increase, or • anyspecflc evidence relating to the actual increase in pricesJ then the increase to be applied would depend upon • . the sane. • . .

15.. \Tormally, recourse is taken to the mode ' of determining the market value. by providing appropriate escal4ion over the proved market value of nearby lands in previous years. (as evidenced by sale transactions or acquistions, where there is no evidece of any conten1zporaneous sale transactions or acquisitions of comparable lands in the neighbourhood. The said method is reasor1ably safe where the relied-on sale fransactions/ acquistions precede the subject acquisition by only a few years, that is upto Jour to five years. Beyond that it may be unsafeJ even if it relates to a neighbouring land. What may be a rliable standard if the gap is only a fev year, may becom'k unsafe and unreliable standard where the gap is larger.Fqr example, for determining the market value of a land 4'cquired in 1992, adopting the annual inprease method with reference to a sale or acquisition in 1970 or 1980 may have many, pitfalls. This is because, over the course of years, the "rate" of annuai increase may itself undergo drastic .change apart from the likelihood of occurrence of varying periods of stagnation . in prices or sudden1 spurts in prices affecting the very standard of increase.

¶19Being indfu1 of the ratio of the decision of'the Apex' Court in ONGC (supi'a), I find that the instance of institutional allotment (Ex.PW13/1) of the year 2007 heavily relied upon by the appe1lans would not be a useful guide to determine the marketa1ue of the land i question, as the said al1otent was made after a period bf three years from the dateof acquisition of'the land in question Iis so said because the sale exernlar of the relevant period of this very village in question is L.App. 'No. 115/2011 & cnnected Appeals of village Bamnoli . fl available. Therefore, the aforesaid instance of allotment of land to the Power Dep4rtrnent of Government of Delhi has been rightly rejected. by the Reference Court.

¶20Now what is required to be considered is whether the sale instance (Ex.R-1) reled upon by the Reference Court is a comparable instance or not. Undisputedly, sale instance (ER-l) is of this very village and is of Octpber, 2004 whereas the land in question was acquired vide Notification of November, 2004. Evidently, aforesid bale instance.. .(Ex.R 1) is ot only relevant but is comparable as if has not been shown by the appellants as to what are the distinguishing features which would make it inapplicable to determine the market value of the acquired lands. Finding of. the Reference Court that when the sale.instance (Ex.R-l) was exhibited no objection was raised by the claimants and as per section 5 1 - A of Land Acquisition Act, 1894, a certified copy of a registered document is acceptable in evidence and since this document has been tendered in e'idence by the Respondenth, the same can be read against them, remains unimpeachable.. .• . . . ..Howeer, to meet the aforesaid finding of the Rerence Court, it was submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that opportunity to lead rebuttalvjdence to show that sale instance (Ex.R-l) is not reliable or bona fide, an application to lead rebuttal evidenceas filed before the Reference Court which Was il1gally .rej ected vide order of 25 August, 2010 and thdrefore, 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). . . I . First ofall, appellants ought to have objected to the exhibition of aforesaid sale instance (Ex.R-1). Having not done so, appellant have t9 face the legal consequences. Secondly, even if application of the LA.App. No. 115/2011 & cohnected Appeals of Village Bamnoli Page 12 ofJ5 / appellants for leading rebuttal evidence was rejected by the Reference Couçt, nothing had stopped them from moving an application for leading additional evidence in the appeal to lead evidence in order to demolish the sale intance (Ex.R-l). Not only this, even during the course of hearing, nothing was urged to show as to how the sale instance (Ex.R-1) is not genuine/reliable or comparable,

¶23In the light of the evide nee on record, I am of the considered • opinion that the Reference Court has rightly relied upon the sale instance (Ex.R-1) to determine the market value of the accuired lands. Finding no merit in the instant appeals of claimants and cross-objection by one of them, the same are dismissed while1aving the parties to bear their own • costs. So far as appeals of the Respondents are concerned, I find no • substance in them, because the determination of the market value of the acquired land by the Reference Court has been done while relying upon the sale instance (Ex.R-1) produced by the Respondents themselves. Regarding ding away of the c1asificatjon of the acquired land into 'A' block and 'B' Block by the Reference Court is concerned, I find that this classificatjop has a reasonable basis. That is to say, land with tp soil and the land without top soil cannot be pt at par as the market value of the land without top soil is bound o be lesser than the market value of , the land with top soil.

¶25Endorsing the price differentiation between 'A' category land and • 'B' category, land, my esteemed brother Pradeep Nandrajog, J., in a recent decisidn in LA.App. No.266/2008, titled as Jai Singi & Ors. i's. Union of India & Ors., rendered on 23rd August 2011, whiie relying on • the decision of the Division Bench of this court in Gajraj Sing/i vs. • • Union of India, 2006 (VI) AD Delhi 13, has held as under:- "56 In Gajraj Singh 's case ('supr, 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 price for C'ategoiy 'A 'land determined was Z9,76,121/- per acre and for Category 'B' land the price determined was 9,51,1211-per acre and the price dfferentia/ comes to about 2.5% with reference to the price of Category 'A' land.

¶571 thus hold that Gajrj Singh 's case should be my guiding star for price differential in the instant cases as well and thus I hold that wherever Category 'A', Category 'B' and Category 'C' have to be differentiated on price, the df'ferent Ia! should be 2.5%. ' a I

¶26. Consequentially, the finding of the Reference Coutt regarding the 'A' category and 'B' category land being similarly situated having same Potentiality and because they are acquired for the same public puose, cannot be sustained in the light of the aforesaid observations. However, the claim of the Union of India, to .seek adoption of the minimum indicativ price of agricultural Jand in Delhi while forgetting that the Appellant - UOI itself has relied upon the sale instance (ExIR-1), merits rejection.

¶27In view of the: afore-going narration, I find that no substance in the appeals filed by claimants as well as in cross objection of one of the claimants and the same are dismiSèd. So far as the appeals flied by Union of India are concerned, the sameare partly allpwed to the extent that the compensation awarded by the . Reference Court for the 'B' category of lands (as noticed in the Awaid of the tand Acquisitioii Collector) is reduced from 7 l 7,45,000 per acre to Z 17,01,375/-per acre

28.. Before parting this order, I would like to bring on record that the brevity of this order is occasioned by the fact that the impugned judgment is well considered on fac and the law. Therefore, I have

1.A.App. No. 115/2011 connected Appeals of Village Bamnoli puioseth1ly not adverted to the éntite evidence on record and the relevant evidence, i.e. of the sale exem. plars'has been taken into consideration by me in this order.

¶29The above captioned appeals and cross-abjection are disposed of with direction to the Registiy to remit the compensation amount, if any, deposited by either side with the Registrar General of this Court, to the

concerned Reference Court. -9STJIL GAUR) JUDGE February 011, 2012 pkb/rs ;A.App. No. 115/2011 & connected Appeals of Village Bamnoll

I * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on: January 12, 2012 Pronounced on: February 01, 2012 + LA.APP. 192/2011 UNION OF INDIA Appellant 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 Jam, Advocate for UOI (R-1 to 5, 18-37, 47, 49, 50-52, 55-73, 75-81, 113-123 Mr.Arun Birbal, Mr.Bankey Bihari Sharma, Ms.Amita Singh, Mr.S.K.Sethi and Mr.Kunal Sharma, Advocates for DDA in (R-74-77 & 80) Mr.Mohinder Singh Charak, Advocate (R-63 and 112) versus RANDHIR S[NGH & ANR Respondent Through: Mr.B . S .Maan, Mr.Amit Maan, Mr.R. S .Verma, Mr.Jai Prakash, Ms. Smita Maan and Mr.Jitin Téwathia, Advocates (R-14-16, 22, 30, 34, 38-45, 51-53) Mr.Mohinder Singh Charak, Advocate for appellant in R-1 12 and respondent in R-63 Mr.B.D.Sharma, Mr.S.K.Rout, Mr.B.K.Routray, Mr.Vinay Kumar, Advocates in (R-84 to 86, 88-102, 104) Mr.S.K.Rout and Mr.B.K.Routray, Advocates (in R-74 and for respondent on R-79) CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR