UOI v. Chetan Saluja & Anr

ORDER

01.02.2012 For orders see LA.App.No.l 15/2011,titled as Jai Prakash vs. Union ofIndia & Anr. FEBRUARY 01,2012 pkb [L 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. / n j i> 1 % IN THE H: GH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Res&i^ed on: Januar\> 12, 2011 i":. Pronounced on: February 01, 2012 LA.APP. 115/2011(VILLAGE BAMNOLI) JAIPRAKASH .. Through: UNION OF i: LA.APP. 16/2011 LA.APP. 19/2011 LA.APP. 22/2011 .A.APP. 90/2011 .A.APP. 93/2011 ..... Appellant Mr.B.S.Maan, Mr.Amit Maan, Mr.R.S.Veniia, 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 appellantin 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.RoutandMr.B.K.Routray,Advocates (in R-74 and forrespondenton R-79) versus SfDIA& ANR. Respondents 'hrough: Mr.Sanjay Poddar, Senior Advocate with Mr.Sanjay Pathak, Ms.Navlin Swain, Ms.K.K.Kiranand Mr.S.N.Pandey, Advocates forUOI r 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.BanlceyBihariSharma, Ms.Amita Slingh,Mr.S.K.Sethi and Mr.Kunal Sharma,Advocatesfor DDA in (R-74-77& .80) Mr.MohinderSinghCharak,Advocate(R-63 and 112) A N D • LA.APP. 17/2011 LA.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.APP. 92/2011 LA.APP. .95/2011 .-A.App,No. 115/2011& connectedAppealsofVillageBarrmoii Page 1 of IS - p T» l-r Wnmr .s, np iil liil cr Tt 's-fir 1 T i " (Vi I " * I ' tissssjfj? 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 21C '/2011 /2011 275/2011 293/2011 304|/2011 3071/2011 310/2011 /2011 '2011 319/2011 325/2011 355/2011 358/f2011 364f011 492^2011 495/2011 499/2011 503/2011 506/2011 513/|2011 573/2011 576/2011 592/2011 196/2011 280/2011 283/ioil 287/2011 . LA.APP LA.APP rrAPPr 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 mac LA.APP. r/5/2011 17972DTT 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. 166/2011 LA.APP. 170/2011 I^<?(PP.173/2011 .A.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. 363/2011 LA.APP. 491/2011 LA.APP. 494/2011 LA.APP. 498/2011 LA.APP. 502/2011 LA.APP. 505/2011 LA.APP. 512/2011 LA.APP. 533/2011 LA.APP. 575/2011 LA.APP. 590/2011 LA.APP. 638/2011 LA.App. 279/2011 LA.App. 282/2011 LA.App. 285/2011 LA.APP. 184/2011 & C.M.No. 10953/2011 (Cross-objection) (Relatingto NotificationNo.9(50)/20d4/L&B/LA/13211of 04.11.2004 issuedunderSection4ofthe LandAcquisitionAct, 1894& AwardNo. 1/2007-2008oi 06.08.2008,VillageBaranoli,NewDelhi) A.App.No.115/2011& connectedAppealsofVillageBamnoli % ' CORAM: HON'BLE MR.. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR ORDER

01.02.2012

¶1Above: captioned appeals and cross-objections relate to acquisition of about 2ip0 bighas of land in Village Bamnoli, Delhi notified for PlannedDevelopmentof Delhi vide Notificationof 4'^ November,2004 under the Land AcquisitionAct, 1894 arid since the impugnedorder of the ReferenceCourt in these appeals unifomilygrants compensation,at the rate of ?17,45,000 per acre with statutory benefits, therefore, v/ith 3f learned counsel for the parties, who were present at the g, these matters were heard together and are being adjudicated upon by this common order.

¶2Land AcquisitionCollectorwhilerelyinguponthe indicativeprice the consent i I final hearin 'ernment of NCT of Delhi for agricultural land in Delhi for question,had determinedthe marketvalue of the acquired /fixed by Go^ i 'the period in land in questionat the aforesaidrate of?15,70,000/-per acre of leveled land in Block A, whereas for the acquired land e^icavatedbeyond one ' meter, i.e.. Block B land, compensation was determined at the rate of ? 14,13,000/-per ac7"e.

¶3Not satisfied with the aforesaid Award of Land Acquisition Collector, before the Reference Court, appellants/claimantshad relied upon Notification of 24"' October, 1994 issued by the Municipal Corporation|of Delhi declaring the land in 20 villages including the . • ' instant village to be urbanized. Reliance was also placed upon , I Notificationpf 16 ' October, 2000 declaringchange,of land use of the acquiredland in questionand thereupon,Delhi DevelopmentAuthority Zonal DevelopmentPlan for Dwarka Sub City in Dvv^arlca, had prepared LA.App,No. 115/2011 &. c.onnectedAppealsofVillageBamnoli Page 3 of 1f5 New Delhi.

¶4While relying upon seven sale instances (Ex.PW-1/7to Ex.PW- • ! :713) ofthe year 1999,relatingto agriculturalland in VillagePochanpur purchased a religious society - Radha Swami Satsang, Beas, and certifiedcopy of Sale Deed of 2?"' September,2004 (Ex.PW-1/14)of VillageBharthal,enhancementin compensationwas sought. Reference Court upon esvaluationof the evidence on record concludedthat there was no evidenceto the effectthat location,potentialand utility of the land in the VillagesofBharthal,Pochanpurand Bamnoliis similarand had chosen not to rely upon the aforesaid sale instances as the Sale i instanceof this very villagewas available. absence of the evidence of the Vendor/Vendee of thie

¶5In the aforesaid sale instances,Reference Court had discarded the aforesaid reliedupon by the appellants/claimants,whileadvertingto 29 ofthe Apex Court'decisionin Lai Chandvs. Union of 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 •commercialplots or the scheduleof market rates for Vasant Vihar by placmg implicitreliance upon the Apex Court decision in Lai Chand (supra) to hold that market price for the developed land cannot be applied while determining the market price of the undeveloped agriculturalland in Delhi. ;

¶6To fortijfythe aforesaidfinding, ReferenceCourt has extensively I quotedthe passagesfrom the Apex Courtdecisionin Lai Cfiand(supra) and thereafter,had proceededto discardheavilyreliedupon instanceof allotment of : Authority to tl; • sale instances' paragraph no: .4.5 acres of the acquired land by Delhi Development e PowerDepartmentof Governmentof NCT of Delhi for LA.App.No. 115/2011& connectedAppealsofVillageBamnoli constmctio holding as n of 715 Mega Watt Gas Based Power Plant/Project,while under:-

¶77The allotmentof1.5 hectareoflandfor apremiumof ^297.42 lakh per acre is an inter departmentalallotment Buyer and seller both are agencies of state. Since no development/constructioncan take place on the land in questionwithoutpermissionofDDA in view ofSection 12 of tlfe Delhi Development Act, 1957 determination of premiumfor allotmentoflandin developmentareais notan ordinarysale betweenaprudentbuyerandseller.Premium of la'^d in such an allotmentcannot be called the market price of land which a prospectivebuyer of similar land sittingin his armchairwouldBe willingtopay.

¶78Moreover,there is a timegap ofthreeyears between date ofNotificationunder Section 4 of LA Act which is

04.11.2004 and date of allotment which is 25.11.2007. Marketprice ofland allottedafter 3years ofNotification under Section '4 of LA Act cannot he taken into considerationfor determiningmarketvalue on the date of NotificationunderSection4: As per Section24 ofLA Act, the C'^urtshallnot take into considerationany increaseto the value,ofthe landacquiredlikelyto accruefrom the use to which it willbeput when required.•"

¶7On thp aspectofthe acquiredlandbeingdeclaredurllanizedand of being in the developmentzone, the pertinentfindings returned by the Reference Court are as under "94. Landofpetitioneris agricultuf-alland althoughit is ~ in urbanized area and in developmentzone. The land continued to be agriculturalland even till issuance of Notificationunder Section 4 ofLA Act in the year 2004 would show that in spite of beingin capital ofcountry \ having explosive population!, no residential colony, ' approvedor unapprovedcame up on the land in question \ and it^wouldnegatepossibilityofland in questionhaving '• potentialfor buildingsiteeven in nearfuture. I

¶95docum The petitioner has broughtno evidence, leave aside -'^ntaryevidence that the acquired land was suitable LA.App. No. 115/201]& connectedAppealsofVillageBamnoli Page 5 of IS for or indi activity a decaa

¶8On the all four sides Siras. Noticin DDA is deve rates for agric putting up buildings, be they residential or commercial 'strial as the case may be. There is no building started on the land in questioneven after.passing of e since area was urbanized. " question of potentiality of the. acquired land, Reference • ! Court has take;nnote of the fact that this acquired land is surrounded on by Villages - Bharthal, Bijwasan, Pochanpur and Dhul I I that acquired land is in the vicinity of Dwarka, where oping colonies and therefore, adoption of the minimum ilturalland fixedbythe Governmentof Delhi bythe Land AcquisitionCollectorwas not justified.Upon consideringthe two sale instancesof 25^'' October,2004 (Ex.R-l)and of 20^'' April, 2004 (Ex.R-2) of this very village. ReferenceCourt had discardedthe sale instance (Ex.R-2) as sale considerationof ^9,02,496per acre was found to be depressed anci had chosen tp rely upon the sale instance (Ex.R-l) depicting sale consideration of ?17,45,1.08'which was found to be comparable.

¶9In the instant appeals, it was vehementlyurged on behalfof the appellantsthat the effectofNotificationof24,October,1994 deckiring the acquired lands being fit for urbanization and Notification of 16'^'' October, 2000 Delhi has not true potential c regarding the change of land use under the Master Plan of been consideredby the ReferenceCourtto appreciatethe I :ifthe acquiredland. Reliancewas placedupon decisionof Apex Cout in SpecialLand AcquisitionOfficer& Anr ra. M,lC RaflqSaheb, (j2Ql1) 7SCC 714, by learnedcounselfor the appellantsto contend that i:i view of the aforesaidNotifications,the acquired land cannot be treated as an agricultural land for determination of its market value. ! '

¶10Aforesaidcontentionis noticedfor being outrightlyrejectedas the UA.App.No. 115/201] & connectedAppealsofVillageBamnoli acquiredlands may not to be termed as agriculturalland but they werje certainlyundeveloped.Govermnent's minimumrates for the agricultural e to Delhi have been rightly discarded by the Reference iance placed upon M.K. Rafiq Saheb (supra), is clearly land applicab Court. So, re' misplaced, as decision of the the Reference Court has determined the marl tl|e acquiredlandwhilerelyinguponasaleexemplarofthis ver}^village. 1|. There is no questionof discardingthe aforesaidNotifications.In fact,'ingpiteof the aforesaidNotificationsnq'developmentactivitywas there on the acquiredlands as no permissionwas soughtby the ov/ners I . •: • ofthe 4pquiredlands underDelhiDevelopmentAct and therefore,it can be safe.^ concludedthat the acquiredlands were undevelopedand the same could not be comparedwith developedlands for determiningthe market value,ofthe acquiredland. Thus, relianceplaced by appellant's -counselupon UdhoDass vs. StateofHaryana&Ors., 2010 (9) SCALE 41 is of no avail. H i • I ''

¶12Reject!qn of auction rates of Delhi DevelopmentAuthority, in Sector 20 and 22 of Dwarkaj by the Reference Court, is assailed by learnedcounselfor the appellants,by contendingthatthe acquiredland is fully comparable with the aforesaid land and is in proximity and therefore,the marketvalueofthe acquiredland oughtto have been fixed I with referencejtothe auctionrates ofthe Delhi DevelopmentAuthority! ReferenceCourthas not only reliedupon the decisionofApex Courtin Lai Chand vs. Union ofIndiq and Ann, (2009) 15 SCC 769 but has extensively quoted relevant p'assages therefrom to hold that the sale I i considerationof the developec^lands cannot be appliedto the acquired lands which are undisputedlyjundeveloped. At the hearing in these appeals, learned counsel for {he appellant could not distinguish the cet value of Apex Court in Lai Chand(supra),whose ratio squarely f.4.App,No. 115/2011 & con t ^ nected Appeals of Village Bamnoli applies to the instant cases. Therefore,I find: that the RefbrenceCourt has rightlyrelusedto applyDelhi DevelopmentAuthorityauctionrates for determiningthe marketvalueofthe acquiredland. 13, Whilereiteratingthe well settledprincipleoflaw that comparable sale instances, are the best piece of evidenceto be consideredby the Court for the jDurposeof determiningthe compensation,Apex Court in , . . i 3ion in RadkaMudaliyar Vs. SpecialTahsildar(Land ^mil Nadu Housing Board) (2010) 13 SCC 384 has der:- its recent deci Acquisition T obsei-ved as un

¶15"13. a deter mm genuine executed mparablesalesinstancesare thesafestmethodfor marketvalue ofthe acquiredland and as laid dow^n in ShajiKuriakosev. Indian Oil Corpn Ltd. it shouldsatisfy thefactors, infer alia (I) the sale must be ti'-ansaction; (2) the sale deed must have been at the time proximateto 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 alon^ it wouldsatisfythe touchstoneoftheprinciples contemplatedunder Section 23 of the Act, 'as held in , KanwarSinghvj. UnionofIndia."

¶14Fixationofthe marketvalue ofthe acquiredland on the,basis of the sale instances(Ex.PW-1/7to Ex.PW-..l/14)ofthe adjoininivillages, as sought by the appellants stands rightly rejected by the Reference Court as the sale instancesofthis very villageare available.When it is so, then there is no need to look for the sale instancesof the adjoining^ villages. On the aforesaidreasoning,adoptionofthe L&DOrates to fix the marlcetvalueofthe acquiredlandssoughtby the appellantsis outrightly rejected. Appellmts'counsel had relied 'upon decision of the Apex LA.App.No. ]15/2011&coiinekedAppealsofVillageBamnoli 8 ^5 Court in Kiran Tandon vs. Allahabad DevelopmentAuthority, (2004) 10 see 745 and in ValUyammal and Anr vs. Special Tehsildar (Land I,' I ' I Acquisition) and Anr., AIR 2011 SC 2937 to assert that deduction of developmentchargeswas improperand where large area, 40% towards not fully developed, is acquired, nornaally, deduction of about 33% i's The need to look for sale instances in the vicinity is ew of the fact that the,sale instancesof the instantvillage are availableand so the requirementof consideringthe applicabilityof the sale instances(Ex.PW-1/7to Ex.PW-1/1.4)would arise only when i;: sale instance (Ex.R-1) is found to be not comparable. Therefore, referenceto the aforesaiddecisionsby learnedcounselfor the appellants is of no consequence.

¶16During |;he course of hearing, learnedcounsel for the appellants had stronglyrelied upon the instanceof allotmentof 14.5 hectares (37 acres approximately)by Delhi DevelopmentAuthority to the Power I Departmentol Delhi Governmenton leaseholdbasis at a considercLtion of %297.42 lacs per acre with 2.5% annual ground rent to claim enhancementcif compensationat the rate of^40 lacsper acre over and abovethe marketvalue fixed by the ReferenceCourtas the allotmentof the aforesaidland was out ofthe acquiredland. With much vehemence, by learned counsel for the appellantsthat the aforesaid I clearly comparable and therefore, on its basis the compensationought to be enhancedwhile treatingthe acquiredland to be at par with the aforesaid land allotted to Power Department of Government of Delhi. i j

¶17To meet the aforesaidstand of the appellants,it was pointedout: by learned senior counsel for the Respondentsthat aforesaidallotment! I i by Delhi DevelopmentAuthorityto Power Departmentof Government; permissible, obviated in vi it was assertec allotment is LA.App.No. 115/2011& connectedAppealsofVillageBamnoli • ! of Delhi was aforesaid land made in November, 2007 and the possession of the was handed over to the Power Department of Government ofDelhi in February,2008 and the acquisitioiaofthe land in questionis of November, 2004 and during the interveningperiod land rates had steadilyincreasedand therefore,aforesaidallotmentcannotbe made the I basis to determine the market value of the acquired land as the intervening gap is of three years.

¶18The factorsto be consideredto determinethe marketvalue of the acquiredlaiids as reiteratedby the Apex Courtin GeneralManager,Oil and Natural Gas CorporationLtd vs. RameshbhaiJivanbhaiPatel and ^CC 745, are as under:- Anr, (2008) 1I.

¶13Prtpaarily, the increase.in land prices depends on fourfactors:situationofthe land, natureofdevelopnientin surroundingarea, availabilityof landfor developmentin the area and the demandfor land iri the area. In rural areas, unless there is any prospectof developmentin the vicinity^, increase in prices would "be slow, 'steady and. gradual, withoutany suddenspurtsorjumps. On the other hand, in urbanor semi-urbanareas,,where the development isfaster, wherethe demandfor landis high andwherethere is constructionactivityall around, the escalation in market price is at a much higherrate, as comparedto rural areas. In somepocketsin big cities, due to rapiddevelopmentand high demand for land, the escalations in prices have even 30% to 50% or more per year, during the touched nineties.

¶14On the other extreme, in remote rural areas where there was no chance ofany developmentand hardly any buyers, thepricesstagnatedforyears or rose marginallyat a nomini^l rate of P/o or 2% per annum. There is thus a significai^tdifferencein increasesin.marketvalue oflands in urban/^semi-urbanareasandincreasesin marketvalueof lands in tjae ruralareas. Therefore,ifthe increasein market value in urban/semi-urbanareas is about 10% to 15%per annum, the correspondingincreases in rural areas wouldat LA.App.No. ]15/2011& conhectedAppealsofVillageBamnoli 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 \n the nineties, to be adoptedin the absenceofclearandspecific evidence relating to increase in prices. Where there are special reasonsfor applying a higher rate of increase, or any specific evidence relating to the actual increase in prices, the same. then the increase to be applied would depend upon

¶15Normally, recourse is taken to the mode of determining the market value by providing appropriate escalation over theproved marketvalue 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-ort sale transactions/ acquisitionsprecede the subject acquisition by only a few years, that is uptofour tofiveyears. Beyondthat it may be unsafe, ^ven ifit relatesto a neighbouringland. What may be a reliablestandardif the gap is only a few years, may become larger, j unsafe and unreliablestandard where the gap is or 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" of annual increase may itself \ undergo drastic change apart from the likelihood of occurrence of varyingperiods of stagnation in prices or sudden spurts in prices ajfecting the very standard of , increase." \ . I . ' I I • • ' I • I

¶19Being mindful of the ratio of the decisionof the Apex Court in O^GC (supra), I find that the instance of institutional allotment (Ex.PWlS/l)of the year 2007 heavily relied upon,by the appellants I I ' wouldnot be a usefulguideto determinethe marketvalue of the landin question, as the said allotmentwas made after a period ofthree years from the date of acquisitionofthe land in question.It is so said because the sale exemplarofthe relevantperiodofthis veryvillagein questionis LA.App.No. 115/2011& connectedAppealsofVillageBamnoli available. Therefore, the aforesaid instance of allotment of land to the Power Department of Government of Delhi has been rightly rejected by I the Reference Court. • .1 , i

¶20Now what is required to be considered is whether the sale instance ' I (Ex.R-1)relied upon by the ReferenceCourt is a comparableinstanceqr not. Undisputjdly,sale instance(Ex.R-1)is of this very villageand is of October, 20C4 whereas the land in question was acquired vide Notification of November, 2004. Evidently, aforesaid sale instance (Ex.R-1)is not onlyrelevantbut is comparableas it has not been shown' by the appellantsas to what are the distinguishingfeatureswhich would • I make it inapplicableto determinethe marketvalue ofthe acquiredlands. FindingofthejReferenceCourtthatwhenthe sale instance(Ex.R-1)was exhibitedno objectionwas raisedby the claimantsand as per section51-A of Land Acquisition Act, 1894, a certified copy of a registered document is c.cceptable in evidence and since this document has been tenderedin e\idenceby the Respondents,the same can be read against them, remains unimpeachable.

¶21However,to meet the aforesaidfinding of the ReferenceCourt, it I • • was submitted^by learnedcounsel for the appellantsthat opportunityto lead rebuttalejvidenceto show that sale instarice(Ex.R-1)is not reliable or bona fide, ah applicationto lead rebuttalevidencewas filed beforethe ' 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 demolishaforesaidsaleinstance(Ex.R-1). ^ I ^22. First of all, appellants ought to have objected to the exhibition of aforesaidsale instance (Ex.R-1).Having not done so, appellantshave to -i consequences. Secondly, even if application of the face the lega LA.App.No. 115/2011& connected Appeals of Village Bamnoli"' appellantsfor leading rebuttal evidencewas rejectedby the Reference Court,nothiig had stoppedthem from movingan applicationfor leading ^idence in the appeal to lead evidencein order to demolish .ance (Ex.R-1). Not,only this, even during the course of hearing,nothingwas urgedto show as to how the sale instance(Ex.BL-Jl) is not genuine/reliableorcomparable. ! light of the evidence on record, I am of the considered •he ReferenceCourthas rightlyrelieduponthe sale instance (Ex.R-1)to cetemiinethe marketvalueofthe acquiredlands.Findingno merit mthe instantappealsof claimantsand cross-objectionby one of them, the same are dismissedwhile leavingthe partiesto beartheirown i , additional e the sale ins

¶23In the opinion that costs. 24, So far substance in aqquired land as appeals of the Respondentsare concerned,I fmd no hem, becausethe determinationofthe marketvalue ofthe by the ReferenceCourthas been done whilerelyingupon the sale instance (Ex.R-1) produced by the Respondentsthemselves. Regarding do: block and 'B this classifica soil and the la of the land wi ing away ofthe classificationofthe acquiredland into 'A' Block by the ReferenceCourt is concerned,I fmd that ;ion has areasonablebasis. That is to say, land with top id withouttop soil cannotbe put at par as the marketvalue houttop soil is boundto be lesserthan.themarketvalueof the landwithtop soil. i

¶25Endorsipthe pricedifferentiationbetween'A' categorylandand 'B' category jand, my esteemedbrother Pradeep Nandrajog,J., in i recentdecisioriin LA.App,No.266/2008,titledas Jm Singh£ Ors. Unionoflndih.&Ors., renderedon 23'"August2011. whilerelyingoJ the decision o Union ofIndia i • the DivisionBench of this court in Gajraj Singh ra. 2006 (VI) AD Delhi 13, has helld as under A.App.No. ]15/2011 C& connectedAppealsofVillageBamnoli "56. Ip. GajrajSingh'scase (supra), theprice differential worked out was 125,000/- per acre. I have noted hereinabove that the acquisition in Gajraj Singh's case pertained to thedate 15.11.1996.In Gajraj Singh's case the pricefor Categoiy 'A ' landdeterminedwas ^9,76,121/-per acre andfor Category 'B' land the price determinekwas ^9,51,121/-per acre and the price differentialcomes to about 2.5% with reference to the price of Category 'A' land. '

¶57I thus hold that Gajraj Singh's case should be my guiding well an 'B' ana dijferen

¶26Conseq appeals filed claimants and star for price differential in the instant cases as d thus I holdthat whereverCategory A', Category Category 'C have to be differentiatedonprice, the tial should be 2.5%. " Lientially,the findingofthe ReferenceCourtregardingthe 'A' categoryand 'B' categorylandbeingsimilarlysituatedhavingsame potentiality ar cannot be sus id becausethey are acquiredfor the same publicpurjoose, ;ained in the light ofthe aforesaidobservations.However, the claim of jthe Union of India, to seek adoption of the minimum indicativepii(;e of agriculturalland in Delhi while forgettingthat the Appellant-qoi itselfhas relied-uponthe salb instance(Bx.R-1),merits rejection. | I I

¶27In vieAvjofthe,afore-goingnarration,I fmd that:no substancein the oy claimants as well as in cross objectionof one of the the same are dismissed. So far as the appeals filed by Union ofIndia are concerned,the same are partlyallowedto the extent that the compensationawarded by the Reference Court for the 'b|' category ofl^nds (as noticed in the Award of the Land Acquisition Collector)is reducedfrom?17,45,000peracreto ^17,01,^75/-peracre:

¶28Beforepartingthis order,I would like to bring on recordthat the I ' ' brevity of thi;s order is occasioned by the,fact that the impugned judgment is vfell consideredon facts and the law. Therefore,I have LA.App.No. 115/2011& connectedAppealsofVillageBamnoli purposefullyhot adverted to the entire evidence on record and the lelevant evidence, i.e. of the sale exemplars has been taken into I consideration by me in this order.

¶29The above captionedappeals and cross-objectionare disposedof with direction|to the Registryto remitthe compensationamount,ifany', depositedby eitherside with the RegistrarGeneralofthis Court, to the concerned Reference Court. -^StJNILG ^ ' I JUDGE February 01, W12 pkb/rs -A.App.No. 115/2011&connectedAppealsofVillageBamnoli Page J5 of 15

* % + % IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI LA.APP. 175/2011 UOI Through: versus Reserved on: January 12, 2012 Pronounced on: February 01. 2012 Appellant 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 M'r.Arun Birbal, Mr.Banlcey 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) CHETAN SALUJA & ANR. Respondent 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 for respondent on R-79) CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR