Union of India v. Jamna & Anr

ORDER

23.02.2012 w

¶1The date before the Joint Registrar stands cancelled as learned counselfor the appellant/UOIstates that fate of this appeal would be governedbyLA.APPNo.115/2011 'JaiPrakash Vs. Union ofIndia & Another', renderedon 1"'February,2012.

¶2In the light of aforesaid,this appeal is disposedof in terms of decisionin LA APP No.115/2011 'JaiPrakash Vs. Union ofIndia & Another',renderedon 1''February,2012 with no ordersas to costs. FEBRUARY 23,2012 b IL GAUR, J pf.. c-Jc Certify that the digital and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file and no page is missing. I % >1: % IN THE HIQH COURT ;OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on: Januan' 12, 2011 Pronounced on: February 01, 2012 + LA.APP. 115/2011 (VILLAGE JAI PRAKASH Through: Appellant Mii-B-S-Maan, Mr.Amit Maan, Mr.R.S.Verrnia, MijjaiPrakash,Ms.SmitaMaan and Mr.Jitin Tewathia, Advocates (R-14-16, 22, 30,.34, 38-45, 51-53) Mr:.Mohinder Singh Charak, Advocate for appellantin R-112 and respondentin R-63 . Mr,B.D.Sharma, Mr.S.K.Rout, Mi'.B.K.Routray, Mr.Vinay Kumar, Advocates in (R-84to 86, 88-^02,104) ! Mr^S.K.Routand Mr.B.K.Routray,Advocates (inR-74 and for respondentonR-79) | versus UNION OF INDIA & Al^ Through: Respondents Mr.Sanjay Poddar, Senior Advocate with Mr^SanjayPathalc,Ms.NavlinSwain, MsJC.K.Kiranand iVIr.S.N.Pandey,Advocates forUOI Mr.; YeeshuJain, Advocate for UOI (R-1 to 5, 18-37,47, 49,50-52, 55-73,75-81, 113-123 | Mr.iArunBirbal,Mr.BanlceyBihariSharnia, Ms^AmitaSingh,NLr.S.K.Sethiand Mr.Kuna Sharma,AdvocatesforDDAin (R-74-77& 80)' Mr.MohinderSinghCharak,Advocate(R-63 mdll2)' LA. APP. 16/2011 LA. APP. 19/2011 LA.APP. 22/2011 LA.APP. 90/2011 LA.APP. 93/2011 L. L L L L AND

4.APP. 17/2011 A..APP. 20/2011 \.APP. 23/2011 \.APP: 91/2011 \.APP. 94/2011 -A.App,No. 115/2011& connectedAppeals ofVillageBamnoli LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. 18/2011 21/2011 24/2011 92/2011 95/2011 IV • ; ••• • I, , • , . • Iff. I r • 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. 115/2011 167/2011 171/2011 174/2011 178/2011 186/2011 192/2011 204/2011 207/2011 210/2011 263/2011 W/2011 293/2011 304/2011-307/2011 310/2011 313/2011 316/2011 319/2011 325/2011 355/2011 358/2011 364/2011 492/2011 495/2011 499/2011 503/2011 506/2011 513/2011 . 573/2011 . 576/2011 . 592/2011 196/2011 280/2011 283/2011 287/2011 L^ LA. LA. l^A.APP. :.A.APP. :.AjAPP. .a!ap?. :.A.'^p. .A.APP. tA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.^P. LA.APP. LA.i^PP. LA.APP. IJA..^P. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA..APP. la.Xpp. LA.App. LA.Aipp. LA.APP LA.^P, L^.APP, LA.Aipp. lIaIpp. lIapp. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.App. App. At)p. App. (Relatingto Notification^ issuediinderSection4 of tl: 1/2007-2008of06.08.2008, '-A.A,p|i;^Jo. 115/2011&connectedAppealso1 X3.:3/2011 LA.APP. 166/2011 16,8/2011, LA.APP. 170/2011 172/2011 LA.APP. 173/2011 175/2011 LA.APP. 176/2011 179/2011 LA.APP. 183/2011 187/2011. LA.APP. 189/2011 193/2011 • LA.APP: 194/2011 205/2011 •. LA.APP. 206/2011 208/2011 LA.APP. 209/2011 211/2011 LA.APP. 260/2011 264/2011 LA.APP. 266/2011 276/2011 LA.APP. 286/2011 295/2011 LA.APP.303/2011 305/2011 LA.APP.306/2011 308/2011 . LA.APP.309/2011 311/2011 LA.APP.312/2011 314/2011 LA.APP.315/2011 317/2011 LA.APP.318/2011 320/2011 LA.APP.321/2011 352/2011. LA.APP.354/2011 356/2011 LA.APP.357/2011 359/2011 ' LA.APP.363/2011 490/2011 , LA.APP.491/2011 493/2011 , LA.APP.494/2011 497/2011 LA.APP.498/2011 501/2011 LA.APP.502/2011 504/2011 LA.APP.505/2011 507/2011 LA.APP.512/2011 524/2011 ^ LA.APP.533/2011 574/2011 LA.APP.575/2011 577/2011 LA.APP.590/2011 645/2011 LA.APP.638/2011 278/2011 LA.App.279/2011 281/2011 , LA.App.282/2011 284/2011 ' LA.App.285/2011 288/2011 LA.APP. 184/2011& C.M.No. 10953/2011 (Cross-objection) ' o.9p0)/2004/L&B/LA/13211of 04.11.2004 eI^andAcquisitionAct, 1894& AwardNo VillageBamnoli,NewDelhi) Village Bamnoli OS } % CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUST:

¶1Above captioned of about 2100 bighas ( Planned Development o CE SUNIL GAUR ORDER O1.O?.2012 ipppalsand cross-objectionsrelateto acquisition if land in Village Bamnoli, Delhi notified for fDelhi vide-Notificationof 4'^ November,2004 under the LandAcquisiiion.Act, 1894 and since the impugnedorder of the ReferenceCourt in hese appeals uniformlygrants compensationat the rate of ^17,45,000/-eracre with statutorybenefits,therefore,with the consentof learnedcounsel for the parties,who were presentat the final hearing,^these matters were heard together and are being adjudicateduponby this

¶2Land Acquisition fixed by Government of common order. (I!ollectorwhilerelyinguponthe indicativeprice NGT of Delhi for agriculturalland in Delhi for the periodmquestion,had determinedthe marketvalue ofthe acquired land in questionat the aforesaidrate oi^l5JO,000/-peracre ofleveled land mBlock A, wherees for the acquiredland excavatedbeyond one meter, i.e.. Block B lane,, compensationwas determinedat the rate of ^14,13,000/-^eracre.

¶3Not satisfied witl the aforesaid Award of Land Acquisition Collector,before the ReferenceCourt, appellants/claimantshad reliid upon Notification of 24"" October, 1994 issued by the Municijal Corporationof Delhi deilaringthe land in 20 villages includingthe instant village to be trba,nized. Reliance was also placed upin Notificafionof 16'' October,;2000 declaringchange of land use of tile and thereupon,Delhi DevelopmentAuthority acquired land in question had preparedZonalDevelopmentPlan for DwaitaSub City in Dwarka, LA.App.No. 115/2011&connectedAppeal,^ of Village Bamnoli IV New Delhi.

¶4While relying upon seven sale instances(Ex.PW-1/7to Ex.PW-sla^ingto.,agriculturalland in VillagePochanpur IS society —Radha Swami Satsang, Beas, and 1/13)of the year 1999,ir< purchased by a religipu, certifiedcopy of SaleiDeed of 27^' September,2004 (Ex.PW-1/14)of VillageBharthal,enhancenientin compensationwas sought. Reference Court upon evaluationof the evidence on.'recordconcludedthat there was no evidenceto the effectthat location,potentialand utility ofithe land in the VillagesoflJllaithal,Pochanpurand Bamnoliis similarlnd had chosen not to rely upon the aforesaidsale instances as the ^ale instanceofthis very villagewas available. f the evidence of the Vendor/Vendee of the Reference.Court had discarded the afores,aid saleinstancesrelieduponby the appellants/claimants,whileadvertingto paragraphno: 29 ofthe Apex Courtdecisionin Lai Chandvs. UnioAof 15 see 769. Before dealing with the sale

¶5In the absence o aforesaid sale instances India and Am., (2009^ instances(Ex.R-Iand Ex.R-II)ofVillageBamnoli,ReferenceCourtliad refused to apply Delhi commercial plots or the DevelopmentAuthority auction rate for the scheduleof market rates for Vasant Vihar by placing-implicitrelianceupon the Apex Court decision in Lai Ckaml (supra) to hold that market price for the developed land cannot applied while determining the market price of the undeveloped agricultural land in Delhi.

¶6To fortifythe aforesaidfinding,ReferenceCourt has extensively quotedthe passagesfromthe!ApexCourtdecisionin LaiChand(suprl) and thereafter,had procefdedto discardheavilyreliedupon instanceif of the acquired land by Delhi Developmeit apartmentof GovernmentofNCT ofDelhi for allotment of 14.5 acres^ Authorityto the Power D •l-A.App.No.115/20]!& connectedAppealsof Village Bamnoli 3e Page 4 of 15 • ra I construction of 715 Me holding as under;- ;ga|WattGas Based Power Plant/Project,-w

¶77The allotmentof1.5 hectareoflandfor apremiumof ^297.42 lakh per Buyer and sellei development/ cor question without acre is an inter departmental allotment, both are agencies of state. Since no Kstructibn can take place on the land in permission of DBA in view of Section 12 of the Delhi DevelppmeniAct, 1957 determination of premiumfor allotmentofland indevelopmentarea is notan ordinarysale betweeriaprudentbuyerandseller.Premium of land in such an allotmentcannot be called the market price of land whicha prospectivebuyer of similfir land sitting in his armc ' '

¶78, Moreover, date of Notificatl

04.11.2004 and Market price of h under Section • consideration for Notification under the Court shall no the value of the la to which it will be hairwouldbe willingtopay. there is a timegap ofthreeyears between on under Section 4 of LA Act which is iate of allotment which is 25.11.2007. md\ allottedafter 3 years of Notification of LA Act cannot be taken into determiningmarketvalue on the date of Sections. As per^Section24 ofLA Act, t take into considerationany increaseto id acquiredlikelyto accruefrom the use joutwhen required. "

¶7On the aspectofthe acquiredlandbeingdeclaredurbanizedand being,inthe developmeiitzone, the pertinentfindings returnedby^the ReferenceGourtare as uilder:- "94. Land ofpeti in urbanized area continued to be Notification under would show that having explosive^ approvedor unapp^^ and it would negau potential for buildir

¶95The petitione documentary evidei LA.App.No. 115/20]]& connectedAppeals tiorieris agriculturalland althoughit is ar^d in developmentzone. The land agriculturalland even till issuance of Section 4 of LA Act in the year 2004 n spite of being in capital of country population, no residential colony, roved came up on the land in question epossibilityofland in questionhaving igsite even in nearfuture. r hfls brought no evidence, leave aside ice-that the acquired land was suitable of Village Bamnoli Page 5 of IS hile of \ •/ for putting up bui or indpstrial as activity started on a decade since are 8, On the question o Court has taken note of:t all four sides by Villag€!s Siras. Noticingthat aqqu r)E)A is developing colo rates for agricultural land Acquisition Collector wa instancesof 25^'' October, 2) of this very village, (Ex.R-2) as sale consider depressed and had chos depicting sale considerat comparable."

¶9In the instantappd appellants that the effect ( the acquired lands being October,2000 regardingtl: .Delhi has not been consid true potentialof the acquire the Apex Court in Specia RafiqSaheb,(2011)7 SCC coiTitend that in view of th cannotbe treatedas an agi value. . 10. Aforesaid contention dings, be they residential or conimercial \ he case may be. There is no building the^lqndin questioneven afterpassingof . was urbanized." iT potentiality of the acquired land, Reference le fact that this acquired land is surrounded on - Bharthal, Bijwasan, Pochanpurand Dhul ired land is. in the vicinityof Dwarka, where nies and therefore.;adoption of the minimum ••• , • - I' fixed by the GovernmentofDelhi by the Land !not justified.Upon consideringthe two sie 20p4 (Ex.R-1)and of20^*' April, 2004 (ExiR-sferjenceCourt had'discardedthe sale instance atipn of ?9,02,496per acre was found to be :n to rely"Upon the sale instance (Ex.R-1) ion! of ?17,45,108 which was found to hie lIs, it was vehementlyurged on behalfofth fNotificatidnof24''^ October, 1994 declaring fit ifor urbanizationand Notificationof 16"' le changeoflanduse underthe MasterPlan o|f 5red by the ReferenceCourt to appreciatethL id land. Reliancewas placedupon decisionof LandAcquisition^,Officer& Anr w. M.IL TM, by learnedcounselfor the appellantsti .e AforesaidNotifications,the acjquiredlane iculturalland for determinationofits marke e IS noticedfor beingoutrightlyrejectedas the |.A.App.No. 115/201]&connectedAppealsof Village Baninoli" ffii I acquired lands may not certainly undeveloped. G land applicable to Delhi to be termed as agriculturalland but they were ovemment's miniriiLunrates for the agricultural have been rightly discarded by the Reference Court. So, relianceplaced tipon M.K. Raflq Saheb (supra), is clearly I I misplaced,as the ReferenceCourt has det^-rminedthe marketvalue of the acquiredlandwhilerijlyingupon,asaleexemplarofthisveryvillage.

¶11Thereis no questionof discardingthe aforesaidNotifications.-In fact, inspiteof the aforesaid.Notificationsno developmentactivity"v\as there on the acquiredlands as no permissionwas soughtby the owners ofthe acquiredlandsunderDelhiDevelopmentAct and therefore,it c'an be safely concludedthat thq acquiredlands were undevelopedand the same could not be comparedwith developedlands for determiningthe marketvalue ofthe acquiredland. Thus, relianceplacedby appellan counselupon UdhoDass V5. StateofHaryana&Ors., 2010 (9) SCAI.E 41 is of no avail.

¶12Rejtetion of auction rates of Delhi PevelopmentAuthority,:in Sector 20 and 22 of Dw learnedcounselfor the ap varka, by the Reference Court, is assailed by TDellantsby contendingthatthe acquiredlandis fully comparable with tie aforesaid land and is in proximity arid therefore,the marketyalwiofthe acquiredlandoughtto have been fixed with referenceto the auctionrates ofthe Delhi DevelopmentAuthority. ReferenceCourthas not onlyj-elieduponthe decisionofApex Courtin Lai Chand vs. Union ofIndia andAnr., (2009) 15 SCC 769 but hL extensivelyquoted relevant passages therefrom to hold that the sale considerationofthe devebpedlands cannotbe appliedto the acquirell lands which are undispuledlyundeveloped.,At the hearing in thesl appeals, learned counsel for! the appellantpuld not distinguishthi decisionofthe Apex Courtin Lai Chand(supra),whoseratio squarelj. ..A.-App,No, 115/2011&connectedAppealsofVillageBamnoli I I 1,A applies to the instantcases]Therefore,I fmd that the ReferenceCourt has rightlyrefusedto applyiDelhiD'evelopmentAuthorityauctionrates for determiningthemarketyalueofthe acquiredland.

¶13Whilereiteratingtie well settledprincipleoflawthatcomparable sale instances,are the b;st piece ofevidenceto be consideredby 4he : Court for the purposeof determining,the compensation,Apex Court in Its recent decisionin 'RadliaMudalfyar Vs. SpecialTahsildar(Land Acquisition Tamil Nad.ii Housing Board) (2010) 13 SCC 384 has observed as under

¶13Comparablesalesinstancesare.thesafestmethodfor detei^rninmgthe mqrketvalue ofthe acquiredland and as ,kaiddown in Shaji Kuriakosev. Indian Oil Corpn. Ltd, it shouldsatisfy the factors, inter alia (1) the sale must be genuine ti^ansaction; (2) the sale deed must have^ been executedat the tin\eproximateto the date ofissuanceof notificationunderSection4ofthe Act; (3) the landcovered by the sale must be in the vicinityofthe acquiredland- (4) the landcoveredby thesale mustbe similarto the acquired landand.(5) size oftheplotofthe landcoveredby the sale be comparableto theacquired land The sales instances shouldpreferablybe closestto the date ofnotificationas then alone it wouldsatisfythe touchstoneoftheprinciples contemplatedunder Section 23 of the Act, as held in KanwarSinghvs. UhiohofIndia."

¶14Fixationofthe marketvalue ofthe acquiredland on the basis o the sale instances(Ex.PW-l/7|toEx.PW-1/145ofthe adjoiningvillages, as sought by the appellartsstands rightly rejected by the Referenci Courtas the sale instancesofthis very villageare available.When it is so, liientiiereis no need to lo^k for tiie sale instancesofthe a<^oining villages. 3oning,adoptionofthe L&DO rates to fix the

¶15On the aforesaid reas marketvalueofthe acquirektodssoughtby the appellantsis outrightly el had-reliedupon decision of the Apex rejected. Appellants' couns •App. No. 115/2011&comiectedAppealsoilVillageBamnoii Pages of 15 •tA.Apt). No. 115/2011&connectedAppeals Court in Kiran Tandon vs.\AllahabadDevelopmentAuthority,(2004) 10 see 745 and in ValliyammalandAnr vs. SpecialTehsildar(Land Acquisition) and Anr., AIR 2011 SC 2937 to assert that deductionof 40% towardsdevelopmentchargesWas improperand where large area, not fully developed,is acquired,normally, deduction of about 33% permissible. The need to look for sale instances in tile vicinity obviatedin view ofthe,i'actthat the sale instancesofthe instantvillage are ^vailableand so the requirementofconsideringthe applicability'of the sale instances(Ex.PW-1/7to Ex.PW-1/14)would arise only wHen sale instance (Ex.R-1) is found to be not comparable. Therefore, referencetq the aforesaiddecisionsby learnedcounselfor the appellants is of no consequence.

¶16During the course had stronglyrelied upon acres approximately) by Department of Delhi Go of ^297.42 lacs per ac enhancementof compens above the market value fi the aforesaid land was ou IS is ofhearing, learned counsel for the appellants th^ instanceof allotmentof 14.5 hectares (137 Delhi DevelopmentAuthority to the Power ernment on leasehold basis at a consideration re iwith 2.5% annual ground rent to claim atiqn at the rate oi.^40lacsper acre over and Ked by the ReferenceCourt as the allotmentof ofthe acquiredland. With much vehemence, It was assertedby learnedcounselfor the appellantsthat the aforesaid allotment is clearly comparable and therefore, on its basis tile compensationought to be enhancedwhile treatingthe acquiredland'to be at par with the aforesaid land allottedto Power Department of Government of Delhi.

¶17To meet the aforesiidstand ofthe appellants,it was pointedout by learnedseniorcounselfor the Respondentsthat aforesaidallotaeilt by Delhi DevelopmentAJithqrityto Power Departmernof Dovernmeit of Village Bamnoli of Delhi was made in aforesaid land was hande f)f Delhi in February, 20 of November, 2004 and steadily increased and basis to determine the intervening gap is of thre

18.. The factors to be acquired lands as reitera and Natural Gas Corpor Anr, (2008) 14SCC 745, November, 2007 and the possession of the ( ^ I d overto the PowerDepartmentof Government )8 and the acquisitionof the land in questionis dqring the interveningperiod land rates had srefbre,aforesaidallotmentcannotbe madeiJhe market value of the acquired land as the years. 'C|onsideredto determinethe marketvalue of.the by the Apex Courtin GeneralManager,hu itidn Ltd Rameshbhai Jivanbhai Patei and arei as under:- •! the ted "13. Primarily, tl four factors: situat. surrounding area, the area, and the areas, unless there vicinity, increase; le increase in land prices depends on on ofthe land, natureofdevelopmentin availabilityof landfor developmentin demandfor land in the area. In rural is \any prospect of developmentin the 'n prices would be slow, steady and gradual,withoutahy suddenspurtsorjumps. On the other hand, in urban or s isfaster, where the is construction acti semi^urbanareas, where the development ierhandfor landishighandwherethere vitylall around, the escalation in market price is at a much higherrate, as comparedto ruralareas. In somepocketsin bigpities, due to rapiddevelopmentand lana, the escalations in prices have to 50% or more per year, duririg the high demand for touched even 30% nineties.

¶14On the other extreme, in remote rural areas where there was no change of.any developrhentand hardly any buyers, thepricesst^gn^tedforyearsor rose marginallyat a nominal rate of 1% hr 2% per annum. There is thus a ^ r-w inus a. significantdifferencein increasesin marketvalue oflands lyj urhmn 7 . « . - in urban/semi-urbanareasandincreasesin marketvalueof landsin theruralarU\ Therefore,ifthe increasein market value in urban/semi-urbanareas is about10% to 15%per annum., the correspondinginci^easesin ruralareaswouldat LA.App. No. .115/20]1&connectedAppealsofVillageBamnoli Page 1.0 of 15. d halfof it, that is about 5% to 7.5%per f th^mb refersto the general trend in the, Dted in the absence of clear and specific to increase in prices. Where there are applying a higher rate of increase, or nce^ relating to the actual increase in rease to be"appliedwoidd depend upon best be only aroun annum. This rule c nineties, to he ado^ evidence relating special reasons fo, any specific evide prices, then the in\: the same. ny

¶15Normally, ] determining the n escalation over the reasonably safe > acquisitions precec years, that is upto larger. For exampl land acquired in method with refere 1980 may have m course ofyears, tAe -ecqurse is taken to the mode of iar\et value^ by providing appropriate proved market value of nearby lands in previous years (ds 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 methodis here the relied-on sale transactions/ ^e the subjectacquisitionby only a few hur^ tofive years. Beyondthat it may be unsafe, even ifitrelatesto a neighbouringland. What may be a reliablestanaard,ifthe gap is only afew years, may become unsafe and unreliablestandardwhere the gap is 'for determiningthe marketvalue ofa 1992, adopting the annual increase nce> to a sale or acquisition in 1970 or iny piifalls. This is because, over the 'rate" of annual increase may itself undergo drastic change apart from the likelihood of occurrenceofvaryingperiods ofsta^ation in prices or sudden spurts in prices affecting tfie very standard of increase. "

¶19Being mindful oft ONGC (supra), I find (EX.PW13/1) of the year wouldnot be a usefulguidi question, as the said allot from the date of acquisitio the sale exemplarof the re LA.App.No. 115/2011& connectedAppeals le ratio of the decisionof the Apex Court,in that the' instance of institutional allotment 20;07 heavily relied upon by the appellant e to determinethe marketvalue of the land:in ment was made after a period of three years n 0:fthe land in question.It is so said because evantperiodofthis very villagein questionis of Village Bamnoli Page 11 of 15 ' E!I I A available.Therefore,the afpresaidinstance of allotmentof land to the Power Departmentof Goveiiimentof Delhi has been rightly rejectedby the Reference Court.

¶20Now what is requiredjto be considered is whether the sale ins'taince ! (Ex.R-1) relied upon by ;heiReferenceCourtis a comparableinstance not. Undisputedly,sale;i:istance(Ex.R-1)is ofthis very villageand is or of October, 2004 whereas Notification of Novem' (Ex.R-1) is not only rele by the appellants as to w the land in question was acquired vide j )er,i 2004. Evidently, aforesaid sale instance i Aant but is,comparable as it has not been shown latjare the distinguishing features which would . I make itinapplicableto determinethe marketvalueofthe acquiredlands. Finding of the Reference Courtthatwhen the sale instance(Ex.R-1)Was exhibitedno objectionwas raisedby the claimantsand as per section51-A of Land Acquisition document is acceptable tendered in evidenceby them, remainsunimpeact

¶21However, to meet was submitted by learned Act, 1894, a ceriified copy of a registered n evidence and since this document has been i ^he'Respondents,the same can be read against I able. ;he ^aforesaidfinding of the ReferenceCourt,it counsel for the appellantsthat opportunityto •lead rebuttalevidenceto showthat sale instance(Ex.R-1)is not reliatil or bona fide, an aiDplicatio: Reference Court which v\ 2010 and therefore, thif in tb leadrebuttalevidencewas filed beforethe 'I as illegallyrejectedvide order of 25"' Auguk, matter needs to be remanded back to the -Reference Court to enable the appellantsto lead rebuttal evidence demolish aforesaid sale instance (Ex.R-1).

¶22Firstof all, appellantsloughtto.haveobjectedto the exliibitionbf I I to aforesaidsale instance(E face the legal conseque >c.Rrl).Havingnot done so, appellantshave t nce,s. Secondly, even if application of the LA.App.No. 115/2011& connectedAppeal; of yillage Bamnoli Page 12 of 15 • ;o Flf m appellantsfor leadingrebuttalevidencewas rejectedby the Reference Court,nothinghad stopped!them from movingan applicationfor leading additionalevidencein the appealto lead evidencein order to demolish /, I '' the sale instance (Ex.E-1);. Not only this, even during the course of hearing,nothingwas urgedjto show as to how the sale instance(Ex.R-1) is not genuine/reliableo]- comparable.

¶23In the light of the evidence,on record, I am of the considered opinionthatthe ReferenceCourthas rightlyrelieduponthe saleinstalce (Ex.R-1)to determinethe marketvalueofthe acquiredlands.Finding^no merit mthe mstant appeals^of claimantsand cross-objectionby one of them,the same are dismissedwhile'leaving'thepartiesto beartheirown costs.

¶24So far as appeals of the Respondentsare concerned,I find substancein them, becaise the determinationofthe marketvalue ofthe acquired land by the Ref the sale instance (Ex.R-Regardingdoing away o block and 'B' Block by the decision of the Divi; 3rehceCourthas been done whilerelyingupon 1) produced by the Respondentsthemselyps. the classificationofthe acquiredland into 'A' the ReferenceCourt is concerned,I find that this classificationhas areasonablebasis. That is to say, land with top soil and the landwithout ;opjsoilcannotbe put at par as the marketvalue ofthe landwithouttop soilis boundto be lesserthanthe marketvaluejof the land with top soil.

¶25Endorsingthepricedifferentiationbetween'A' categoryland and B category land, my esteemed brother Pradeep Nandrajog, J., in a recentdecisionin LA.App.No.266/2008,titledas JaiSingh£ Ors. UnionofIndia&Ors., renderedon 23""August2011,whilerelyingin ision Bench of this court in Gajmj Singh ra. UnionofIndia,2006(VI)A© Delhi 13, has held as under:- .A.App,No. ]15/2011& connectedAppealsof Village Bamnoli Page 13 of IS "56. In Gajraj i worked but wa heremabove that pertained to the d price for Categor^ acre and for Cat^^ ^9,51,121/- per : about 2.5% with land. 'ingh'scase (suprd), theprice differential ^25,000/- per acre. I have noted the acquisition in Gajraj Singh's case \ 2te \15.11.1996.In Gajraj Singh's case the! ' 'A' landdeterminedwas ^9,76,121/-per ' igoiy 'B' land the,price determined was 'cre and the price differentialcomes to ^ reference to the price of Category 'A' i a

¶57I thus hold gidding star for well and thus I 'B' and Category differential should '•hat^ Gajraj Singh's case should be my .^rice differentialin the instant cases as 'd tfiat wheteverCategory A', Category 'C' have to be differentiatedonprice, the be2.5%o." hoi

¶26Consequentially,tie findingofthe ReferenceCourtregarding±q A categoryand 'B' categorylandbeingsimilarlysituatedha,vingsame potentialityand becausethey are acquiredfor the same publicpurpose, cannotbe sustainedin the lightofthe aforesaidobservations.Howevler, the claim of the Union of India, to seek';adoption of the minimum indicative-priceof agricalturalland in Delhi while forgettingthat the Appellant-UOI itselfhesrelieduponthe sale instance(E}f.R-l),merits rejection.

¶27In viewofthe,afofA-goingnaiTation,Ifindthatno substancein the appeals filed by claunantsais well as in cross objectionof one of the claimantsand the same are:dismissed. So far as the appeals filed by ::ned,the same are partlyallowedto the extent Union of India are conce that the compensationawarded by the Reference Court for the 4 ticed in the Award of the Land Acquisitic ^17,45,000acreto ^17,01,375/-peracre. ordpr,I would like.to bring on recordthat the occasioned by the fact that the impugned redj on facts and the law. Therefore,I ha\ category of lands (as no Collector)is reducedfrom

¶28Beforepartingthis -brevity of this order is , • judgment is'well conside i • - ' LA.App.No. 115/2011&connectedAppeals •n e of ViillageBamnoli f % purposefullynot adverted to the entire evidence on record and the relevant evidence, i.e. c consideration by me in thi;

¶29The above captioned with directionto the Regis deposited by either side w concerned Reference Cour; ' the sale exemplars has been taken in order. - appeals and cross-objectionare disposedof itryitoremitthe compensationamount,ifanj, ith ;the RegistrarGeneralofthis Court, to the NIL GAUR) JUDGE .0 February 01, 2012 pkb/rs A7 1 , . « mC CXJL O > f-crr cl'SP"^ ,! //yit li. So - I l^.App^No. ]15/2011&connectedAppealsofVillageBamnoli Page IS of IS

V + % IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI LA.APP. 180/2011 UNION OF INDIA Appellant Through Mr. Yeeshu Jain, Advocate versus JAMNA & ANR Respondents Through Mr. S. K. Sethi, Advocate for DDA/Respondent No.2 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR