UOI v. Kavita & Anr

ORDER

01.02.2012 For orderssee LA.App.No.115/2011,titledasJai Prakashvs. UnionofIndia & Anr. FEBRUARY 01, 2012 pkb GAUR) JUDGE Certify that the digital file and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file and no page is missing. ' % % IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on:. Janiian> 12, 2011 Pronounced on: Februai^ 01, 2012 LA.APP. 115/2011 (VILLAGE BAMNOLi) JAI PRAKASH Through: UNION OF LA. APP. 16/2011 I.A.APP. 19/2011 LA.APP. 22/2011 LA.APP. 90/2011 LA.APP. 93/2011 .....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 Mi-.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) versus ^ NDIA & ANR. ....;Respondents rhrough: Mr.Sanjay Poddar, Senior Advocate with Mr.Sanjay Pathalc, Ms.Navlin Swain, Ms.K.K.Kiran and Mr.S.N.Pandey, Advocates forUOI Mr. Yeeshu Jain, Advocate for UOI (R-1 to 5, 18-37, 47, 49, 50-5£, 55-73, 75-81, 113-123 Mr.Arun Birbal, Mr.BanlceyBihari 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):: AND LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. 17/2011 20/2011 23/2011 91/2011 94/2011 LA.App. No. 115/2011 & connected Appeals of Village Bamnoli LA.APP. 18/2011 LA.APP. 21/2011 LA.APP. 24/2011 LA.APP. 92/2011 LA.APP. 95/2011 Page l.of 15 If ri- 'si I I , r .?v •an A 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. 1^7/2011 171/2011 174/2011 178/2011 186/2011 192/2011 204/2011 207/2011 210/2011 260/2011 275/2011 29B/2011 30|l/2011 30)7/2011 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 5/2011 LA.APP. .133/201L /-lA.APP. 166/2011 168/2oT^^ LA.APP. 170/2011 .: 17272011 LA.APP. 173/2011 ; LA.APP. 176/2011 ; LA. APP. 183/2011 . LA.APP. 189/2011 , LA.APP; 194/20 li ' LA.APP. 206/2011 LA.APP. 209/2011 LA.APP. 260/2011 : . LA.APP. 266/2011 LA,APP. 286/2011 LA.APP. 303/2011 LA.APP, 306/2011 LA.APP. 309/2011 LA.APP. 312/2011 LA.APP. 315/2011 LA.APP. 318/2011 ^ LA.AJPP.321/2011, LA.APP.-354/2011' LA.APP. 357/2011 LA.APP. 363/2011 LA.APP. 491/2011 LA.APP. 494/2011 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 L (Cross-objection) (Relatingto NotificationNo.9(50)/2004/L&E/LA/13211of 04.11.2004 issuedunderSection4ofthe LandAcquisitionAct, 1894& AwardNo 1/2007-2008of06.08.2008,VillageBamnoli,New Delhi) 196/ 280/ /2011 /2011 ^2011 592/2011 2011 2011 283/2011 287/2011 (LA.APP. lA?p: 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. 175/2011 179/2011 187/2011 193/2011 205/2011 208/2011 211/2011 264/2011 276/2011 295/2011 .305/2011

30.8/2011 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 • r.A.App.No. 115/2011& connectedAppealsofVillageBamnoli % % CORAM: HON'BLE 1Abo\ of about 2: Planned De under the L the Referen the rate of the consent adjudicated

¶2Land fixed by Gc MR. JUSTICE. SUNIL GAUR ORDE

01.02.2012 e captionedappealsand cross-objectionsrelateto:acquisition 00 bighas of land in Village•Bamnoli, Delhi notified for velopmentof Delhi vide Notificationof 4'^ November,2004 and AcquisitionAct, 1894 and since the impugnedorder of :e Court in these appeals uniformlygrants compensationat fl7,45,000per acre with statutorybenefits,therefore,with of learned counsel for the parties,who were presentat the final hearing, these matters were heard together and are being upon by this common order. AcquisitionCollectorwhilerelyinguponthe indicativeprice vemment of 'NCT of Delhi for agricultural land in Delhi for the periodin question,had determinedthe marketvalue ofthe acquired land in questionat the aforesaidrate of?15,70,000/-per acre ofleveled land in Block A, whereas for the acquiredland excavatedbeyond one meter, i.e., ]31ock B land, compensationwas determinedat the rate of per acre. atisfied with the aforesaid Award of Land Acquisition Collector, before the ReferenceCourt, appellants/claimantshad relied :ation of 24"^ October, 1994 issued by the Municipal of Delhi declaring the land in 20 villages including the ge to be urbanized. Reliance was also placed, uppn of 16^^ October, 2000 declaringchange of land use of the acquired land in questionand thereupon,Delhi DevelopmentAuthority had preparedZonalDevelopmentPlan for Dwarka.Sub City in Dwarka, ^14,13,000/

¶3Not ; upon Notifi Corporation instant ville Notification ^A.App. No. ] 15/2011 & ;onnectedAppeals of Village Bamnoli New Delhi.

¶4Whil 1/13) of the purchased certified co e relying upon seven sale instances(Ex.PW-; year 1999,relatingto agriculturalland in VillagePochanpur I 3y a religious society Swami Satsang, Beas, and py of Sale Deed of 27^'' September,2004 (Ex.PW-1/14)of n to Ex.PW-VillageBharthal,enhancementin compensationwas sought. Reference Court upon evaluationof the evidence on record concludedthcit there was no evidenceto the effect that location,potentialand utility ofthe land in the VillagesofBharthal,Pochanpurand Bamnoiiis similarand not to rely upon the aforesaid sale instances as the Sale had chosen instanceofIhis very villagewas available. ' le absence of the evidence of the Vendor/Vendeeof the le instances, Reference Court had discarded the aforesaid sale instancesreliedupon by the appeliants/blaimants,whileadvertingto paragraphno:.29ofthe Apex Courtdecisionin Lai Chandvs. Unionof India and Anr., (2009) 15 SCC 769. Before dealing with the sale mstances(Ex.R-Iand Ex;R-II)ofVillageBamnoii,ReferenceCourthad • refused to apply Delhi DevelopmentAuthority auction rate for the commercialplots or the scheduleof market rates for Vasant Vihar by placing implicitrelianceupon the Apex Court decision in Lai Chand (supra) to hold that market price for the developed land cannot be applied while detemiining the market price of the undeveloped agricultural 1md in Delhi.

¶6^ To fortifythe aforesaidfinding,Reference-Courthas extensively quotedthe passagesfrom the Apex CourtdecisionmLalChand(supra)

¶5In th aforesaid sa an^ thereafte allotment of Authority to r, had proceededto discardheavilyreliedupon instanceof

14.5 acres of the acquired land by Delhi Development :he PowerDepartmentofGovernmentofNCT ofDelhi for LA.App,No. 115/2011& connectedAppealsofVillageBamnoii constmctio:iof.715 Mega Watt Gas Based Power Plant/Project,while holding as under:- "77. X297 Buye devel

78.- . date

04.11 The allotmentof1.5 hectareoflandfor apremiumof 42 lakh per acre is an inter departmentalallotment. " and seller both ari agencies of state. Since no opment/constructioncan take place on the land in questionwithoutpermissionofDDA In view ofSection 12 of the Delhi DevelopmentA.ct, 1957 determination of premiumfor allotmentofland in developmentarea is not an ordinarysale betweenaprudentbuyerandseller.Premium of land in such an allotmentcannot be called the market price of land which a prospectivebuyer of similar land sittingin his armchairwouldb^willingtopay. Moreover, there is a time gap ofthreeyears between of Notificationunder Section 4 of LA Act which is 2004 and date of allotment which is-25.11.2007. Marketprice ofland allottedafter 3years ofNotification under Section 4 of LA Act cannot be taken into considerationfor determiningmarket value on the date of NotificationunderSection 4. As per Section24 ofLA Act, the Courtshallnot take into considerationany increaseto the value ofthe landacquiredlikelyto accruefrom the use ' tch it will beput when required." to whi

¶7On the being in the Reference C \ "94. aspect of the acquired land being declared urbanized and of developmentzone, the pertinentfindings returned by the Durt are as under:- Land ofpetitioneris agriculturallandalthoughit is in urb^anized area and in developmentzone. The land continued to be agriculturalland even till issuance of ation under Section 4 of LA Act in the year 2004 show that in spite of being in capital of country Notific would having explosive population, no residential colony, 'ed or unapprovedcame, up on, the land in question wouldnegatepossibilityofland in question having potentialfor buildingsite even innearfuture. • The petitioner has brought no evidence, leave aside ^-.ntary evidence that, the acquired land was suitable

¶95docume, LA.App.No. 115/2011 & connectedAppealsofVillageBamnoli Pages of 15 % for pi.tting up buildings, be they residentialor commercial or industrialas the case may be. There is no building activitystartedon the landin'questioneven afterpassingof a decade since area was urbanized. "

¶8On th Court has ta Siras. Notici DDA is dev rates for agri Acquisition instances of question of potentialityof the acquired land, Reference cen note of the fact that this acquired land is surrounded on all four sides by Villages-Bharthal, Bijwasan,Pochanpurand Dhul ng that acquiredland is in the vicinityof Dwarka, where sloping colonies and therefore, adoption of the minimum culturalland fixed by the GovernmentofDelhi by the: Land .ollectorwas not justified.Upon consideringthe two sale October,2004 (Ex.R-l)and of20'*' April, 2) of this veiy village,ReferenceCourt had discardedthe sale instance (Ex.R-2) as sale considerationof ?9,02,496per acre was found to be .d had chosen to rely upon the sale instance (Ex.R-l) e considerationof ?17,45,,108 which was found to be 2004 (Ex.R-depressed ar depicting sal coiTiparable.'

¶9In the instant appeals, it was vehemerMyurged on behalfof the appellantsth£t the effectofNotificationof24''' October,1994 declaring , the acquired October, 200( Delhi has not true potential lands being fit for urbanizationand Notificationof 16^'' 'regardingthe changeofland"use underthe MasterPlan of been consideredby the ReferenceCourtto appreciatethe ofthe acquiredland. Reliancewas placedupon decisionof the Apex Court in SpecialLandAcquisitionOfficer•& Anr vs, M.K. RafiqSaheb, (2011)7SCC 714, by learnedcounselfor the appellantsto contend that jn view of the aforesaidNotifications,the acquired land cannotbe treatedas an agriculturalland for determinationofits market value. ;

¶10Aforesaidcontentionis noticedfor beingoutrightlyrejectedas the Vv.App.No.115/201]&coanectedAppealsofVillageBamnoli r * • , ! acquiredIands may not to be termed as agriculturalland but they were certainlyun<ieveloped.Government'sminimimrates for the agricultural land applicableto Delhi have been rightly discardedby the Reference eliahce placed upon M.K. Rafiq Saheb (supra), is clearly s the ReferenceCourt has determinedthe market value of landv^hilerelyinguponasaleexemplarofthis;veryvillage. . • • • I is no questionof discardingthe aforesaidNotifications.In ofthe aforesaidNotificationsno developmentactivitywas acquiredlands as no pemiissionwas soughtby the owners dlandsunderDelhiDevelopmentAct and therefore,it can Court. So, r misplaced, a the acquired

¶11There fact, inspite there on the of the acquir be safely concludedthat the acquiredlands were undevelopedand the same could i market value counsel upon 41 is of no a\ lot be comparedwith developedlands for determiningthe of the acquiredland. Thus, relianceplaced by appellant's UdhoDass vs. StateofHaryana&Ors., 2010 (9) SCALE ail.

¶12Rejection of auction rates of Delhi DevelopmentAuthority, in Sector 20 and 22 of Dwarka, by the Reference Court, is assailed by learnedcounselfor the appellantsby contendingthatthe acquiredlandis fully comparable with the aforesaid land and-is in proximity and marketvalueofthe acquiredland oughtto have been fixed . therefore, the with reference,to the auctionrates ofthe DelhiDevelopmentAuthority. ReferenceCoart has not onlyreliedupon the decisionofApex'Courtin Lai Chand v&. Union ofIndia andAnr., (2009) 15 SCC 769 but has extensively q consideration lands which appeals, learn •roted relevant passages therefrom to hold that the sale of the developedlands cannot be appliedto the acquired ire undisputedlyundeveloped. At the hearing,in these ed counsel for the appellant bould not distinguish the decisionofthe Apex Court in Lai Chand(supra),whose ratio squarely LA.App.No. 115/2011 & co inectedAppealsofVillageBamnoli applies to the instant cases. Therefore,I find that the ReferenceCourt .has rightlyrefusedto applyDelhi DevelopmentAuthorityauctionrates for determiningthe marketvalueofthe acquiredland.

¶13Whilereiteratingthe well settledprincipleoflaw thatcomparable sale instances,are the best piece of evidenceto be consideredby the Court for the purposeof determiningthe compensation.Apex Court in :ision m Radha Mudaliyar Vs. SpecialTahsildar(Land Tamil Nadu Housing Board) (2010) 13 SCC 384 has nder:- its recent de Acquisition observed as i

¶14"13. determ laid do should genuim so, then there villages. ' 15; On the a market value o; rejected. Appe] .fLA.App.No. 115/2011 &• com ^omparablesalesinstancesare thesafestmethodfor ming the market value ofthe acquiredland and as wn in Shaji Kuriakosev. Indian Oil Corpn Ltd it satisfy the factors, inter alia (1) the sale must be ti^ansaction; (2) the sale deed must have been executedat the time proximateto the date ofissuanceof notificationunderSection4oftheAct; (3) the landcovered by the sale must be in the vicinityofthe acquiredland; (4) the landcoveredby thesalemusthe similarto the acquired landand (5) size oftheplotofthe landcoveredby the sale be comparableto theacquired land The sales instances shouldPreferablybe closestto the daie ofnotificationas then alone it wouldsatisfythe touchstoneoftheprinciples contemplatedunder Section 23•of the Act, as held in KanwarSinghvs. UnionofIndia." Fixation of the marketvalue of the acquiredland on the basis of the sak instances(Ex.PW-1/7to Ex.PW-1/14)ofthe adjoiniigvillages, as sought by the appellants stands rightly rejected by tlie; Reference Court as the sale instancesofthis very villageare available.When it is sno need to look for the sale instancesofthe adjoining oresaidreasoning,adoptionofthe L&DO ratesto; fix the the acquiredlands soughtby the appellantsis outrightly lants' counsel had relied upon decision of the Apex ectedAppealsOfVillageBamnoli Page8of15 ' u G Court in Kiran Tandon vs. AllahabadDevelopmentAuthority,(2004) 10 see 745 and in Valliyammaland Anr vs. Special Tehsildar(Land i ' i . and Anr., AIR 2011 ,Se 2937 to assert that deduction;of Acquisition) 40% toward;developmentchargeswas improperand where large area, /eloped, is acquired, normally, deduction of about 33% is The need to look for sale instances in the vicinity;is not fully de permissible. obviatedin |iewofthe factthat the sale instancesofthe instantvillage are available the sale inst sale. instanc reference to and so the requirementofconsideringthe apphcabilityof mces (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 is of no consequence.

¶16During had stronglyrelied upon the instanceof allotmentof 14.5 acres approximately)by Delhi DevelopmentAuthority to the Power Departmentof Delhi Governmenton leaseholdbasis at a consideration 'acs per acre with 2.5% annual ground rent to claim ofcompensationat the rate of^40 lacsper acre over and rket value fixed by the R!:eferenceCourtas the allotmentof land was out ofthe acquiredland. With much vehemence, the course of hearing, learned counsel for the appellants hectares (37 of X297.42 enhancement above the ma the aforesaid it was assertedby learned counsel for the appellantsthat the aforesaid allotment is 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. ~

¶17To meet the aforesaidstand ofthe appellants,it was pointedout by learnedseiiorcoiuisel for the Respondentsthat aforesaidallotment by Delhi DevelopmentAuthorityto Power Departmentof Government ..A.App. No. 115/2011 & ccnnectedAppealsofVillageBamnoli m of Delhi was made in November, 2007 and the possession of the aforesaidlardwas handedoverto the PowerDepartmentofGovernment ofDelhi in February,2008 and the acquisitionofthe land in questionis of November, 2004 and during the interveningperiod land rates had steadilyincrijasedand therefore,aforesaidallotmentcannotbe made the basis to de;ermine the market value of the acquired land as the interveninggap is ofthreeyears.

¶18The fa ctors to be considered to deterniine the, marke ; value of the acquiredlands as reiteratedby the Apex Courtin GeneralManager,Oil Gas CorporationLtd vs. RameshbhaiJwanbhaiPateland .4 see 745, are as under:- , 'rimarily, the increase in land prices depends on and Natural Anr, (2008) "U. . fourfactors:situationofthe land, natureofdevelopmentin nding area, availabilityoflandfor developmentin surrou - J J^' r VV Lfl the area, and the demandfor land in the area. In rural unless there is any prospectof developmentin the vLCLniL)^ increase in prices would Be slow, steady and gradual, withoutany suddenspurts orjumps. On the other hand, in urbanor semi-urbanareas, wherethe development ISfaster, wherethe demandfor landis high andwherethere is constructionactivityall around, the escalationin market price zi ata much higherrate, as comparedto ruralareas. In somepocketsin big cities, due to rdoiddevelopmentand high demand for land, the escalations in.prices have touched even 30% to 50% or more per year, during the nineties.

¶14On the other extreme, in remote rural areas where there - - as no chance of.any developmentand hardly any buyers,'^hepricesstagnatedforyearsor rose marginallyat a nomirialrate of 1% or 2%per annum. There is thus a significantdifferencein increasesin marketvalue oflands in urban/semi-urbanareasandincreasesin marketvalueof the ruralareas. Therefore,ifthe increasein market ^urban/semi-urbanareas is about 10% to 15%per the correspondingincreasesin ruralareaswouldat lands in value in annum. LAApp No. 115/2011 & coinectedAppealsofVillageBamholi L G best bs only aroundhalfofit; that is about5% to 7.5%per annum. This rule of thumb refers to the general trend in the nineties, to be adoptedin the absenceof clear and specific evidevice relating to increase in prices. Where there are special reasonsfor applyinga higher rate of increase, or any specific evidence relating to the actual increase in then the increaseto be appliedwoulddependupon hie. prices : the sai

¶15Normally, recourse is taken to the mode of determining the market value by providing appropriate escalationover theprovedmarketvalue of nearby lands in previous years . (as evidenced by mle transactions or acquisitions), where there is no evidence of any conterriporaneous sale transactions or acquisitions of comparable lands in the neighbourhood.The said methodis reason acquis years, unsafe, ably safe where the relied-dn sale transactions/ itionsprecede the subjectacquisitionby only a few that is uptofour tofiveyears. Beyondthat it may be even ifit relatesto a neighbouringland. What may be a reliablestandardifthe gap is only afew years, may become unsafe and unreliablestandardwhere the gap is larger.For example,for determiningthe marketvalueofa 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" ofannual increase may itself undergp drastic change apart from the likelihood of occurrenceof varyingperiods of stagnation in prices or sudden spurts in prices affecting the very standard of increase." •

¶19Being nindful of the ratio of the decisionof the Apex Court in ONGC (supra), I find that the instance of institutional allotment .(Ex.BWl3/l)iofthe year 2007 heavily relied upon by the appellants wouldnot be |a usefulguideto determinethe marketvalue ofthe land in question, as the said allotmentwas made after a period of three years from the date ofacquisitionofthe land in question.It is so said because the sale exem;3larofthe relevantperiodofthisveryvillagein questionis LA.App.No. 115/2011& connectedAppealsofVillageBamnoli available.Therefore,the aforesaid;,instanceof allotmentof land to the PowerDepartmentofGovernmentofDelhi has been-rightlyrejectedby .the Reference Court.

¶20Now)vhatis requiredto be consideredis whetherthe sale instance (Ex.R-1)reliedupon by the ReferenceCourtis acomparableinstanceor not. Undispjtedly,saleinstance(Ex.R-1)isjofthis veryvillageand is of October, 2004 whereas the land in question was acquired vide Notification!of November, 2004. Evidently, aforesaid sale instance (Ex.R-l)is i|ot onlyrelevantbut is comparableas it has not been shown by the appellantsas to what are the distinguishingfeatureswhichwould make it inapplicableto determinethe marketvalueofthe acquiredlands. Findingoftlje ReferenceCourtthat:whenthe saleinstance(Ex.R-1)was exhibitedno iobjectionwas raisedby the claimantsand as persection51-A of Land ^Acquisition Act, 1894, a certified copy of a registered documentis iacceptablein evidence and since this d6cumenthas been tenderedin eyidenceby the Respondents,the same can be read against them,remainsunimpeachable.. ,

¶21Howeyer,to meetthe aforesaidfindingofthe ReferenceCourt, it was submitte^lby learnedcounsel for the appellantsthat opportunityto lead rebuttalevidenceto show that sale instance(Ex.R-1)is not reliabk or bonafide, an applicationto leadrebuttale\ddencewas filed beforethe ReferenceCo^rtwhichwas illegallyrejectedvide orderof25"' August, 2010 and thcjrefore, this matter needs,to be remanded back to the Reference Coprt to enable the appellantsto lead rebuttal evidence to demolishaforesaidsaleinstance(Ex.R-1).

¶22Firstof|all,appellantsoughtto have objectedto the exhibitionof .aforesaidsaleinstance(Ex.R-1).Harfngnot done.so,appellants'have to face tlie lega| consequences. Secondly, even if application'of the • LA.App.No. 115/2011&connectedAppealsofVillageBamnoli I • I i 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 saleinstance (Ex.R-1)to determinethe marketvalueofthe acquiredlands.Findingno merit in the instantappeals of claimantsand cross-objectionby one of them, the same are dismissedwhilqleavingthe partiesto beartheirown , 'costs.

¶24So far as appeals of the Respondentsare concerned,I find no substancein them, becausethe determinationofthe marketvalue ofthe acquiredland by the ReferenceCourthas been done whilerelyingupon the sale instance (Ex.R-1) produced by the Respondentsthemselves. Regardingdoing away ofthe classificationofthe acquiredland into 'A' block and 'B' Block by the ReferenceCourt is concerned,I find that this classificationhas areasonablebasis. That is to say, land with top soil and the landwithouttop soil cannotbe put at par as the marketvalue ofthe landwithouttop soil is boundto be lesserthanthe marketvalueof ^ the landwithitop soil. i,

¶25Endorsingthepricedifferentiationbetween'A'category-landand B' category^land, my esteemed brother Pradeep kandrajog,J., in a recentdecisionin LA.App.No.266/2008,titledas JaiSingh&Ors. vs. UnionofIndia&Ors., renderedon 23'" August2011, whilerilyingon , ; • the decision of the DivisionBench of this court in Gajmj Singh vi 2006(VI)AD Delhi 13, hasheldas under:- i ; . • j LA.App.No. ]]5/2011 &connectedAppealsofVillageBamnoli l\ "56. In GajrajSingh'scase (supra), thepricedifferential ^i worked out was X25,000/- per acre. I have noted \ hereinabovethat the acquisition in Gajraj Singh's case ' pertainedto the date 15.11.1996.In GajrajSingh'sease the pricefor Category 'A 'landdeterminedwas ^9;76,121/-per 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/ thus hold that Gajraj Singh"s-case should be my guiding starfor price differentialin the instant cases as wellandthusI holdthat whereverCategory 'JCategor), B andCategory'C have ta be differentiatedonprice the differential should be 2.5%. "

¶26Consequentially,the findingofthe ReferenceCourtregardingthe 'A' categoryand 'B' categorylandbeingsimilarlysituatedhavingsame potentialityand becausethey are acquiredfor the same publicpurpose. cannotbe sustainedin the lightofthe aforesaidobservations.However. the claim of the Union of India, to seek adoption of the minimum mdicative-priceof agriculturalland in Delhi while forgettingtliat the Appellant-UOI itselfhas relieduponthe saleinstance(Ex.R-1),merits rejection.

¶27In viewofthe,afore-goingnarration,Ifindthatno substancein the appeals filed by claimantsas well as in cross objectionof one of the claimantsand the same are dismissed. So far as the appeals^filed by UnionofIndiaare concerned,the same are partlyallowedto the extent that the compensationawarded by the Reference Court for^he 'B' categoryof lands (as noticed in the Award of the Land Acquisition .Collector)is reducedfrom?17,45,000p^.acretotllfiUHSl-peracre.

¶28Beforepartingthis order,Iwould like to bringon reclrdthat the brevity of this order is occasioned by the fact that the impugned judgmentis well consideredon facts and the law. Therefore,IiLve l,A.App.No.115/2011&c"""ectccIApp..Is"fVi"ageBan,""li P.g=,4"f,5 ' purposefullynot adverted to the en|ire 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 captionedappealsand cross-objectioiiare disposedof with direction,to the Registryto remitthe compensationamount,ifany, depositedby eitherside with the RegistrarGeneral,(|j|iisCourt,to the concerned Reference Court. February 01, 2012 pkb/rs l>A:App.No. 115/2011&connectedAppealsofVillageBamnoli fIL GAUJR) JUDGE >1

-D -2^ % + O % A. IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI LA.APP. 168/2011 UOI Through: versus KAVITA & ANR. Through: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR Reserved on: January 12. 2012 Pronounced on: February PL 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 Mr.Amn 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.MohinderSingh Charak,Advocate (R-63 and 112) Respondent Mr.B.S.Maan, Mr.Amit Maan, Mr.R.S.Verma, Mr.Jai Prakash, Ms.Smita Maan and MrJitin Tewathia, Advocates(R-14-16,22, 30, 34, 38-45,51-53) Mr.MohinderSingh Charak,Advocatefor 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.Routand Mr.B.K.Routray,Advocates(in R-74 and for respondent on R-79)