UOI v. Narain Singh & Anr

ORDER

01.02.2012 For orders see LA.App.No.l 15/2011,titled as Jai Frakash vs. Union ofIndia & Anr. JNIL 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 i I ! ;! I Reserved on: Janiiary 12, 2011 Pronounced on: February PL 2012 LA.APP. 11 :j/2011 (VILLAGE BAMNOLI) JAIPRAKA SH , ..... Appellant ' >| Through: Mr.B.S.Maan,]yir.,;4initMaan, 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.Mohihder Singh Charak, Advocate for appellantin R-112 and respondentin 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 (inR-74 and for respondentonR-79) versus NDIA&ANR. .....Respondents rhrough: Mr.Sanjay Poddar, Senior Advocate with Mr.Sanjay Pathak, Ms.Navlin Swain,, Ms.K.K.Kiranand Mr.S.N-Pandey,Advocates fbrUOI . Mr. YeeshuJain,Advocatefor UOI (R-1 to 5, 18-37,47,49,50-52,55-73,75-81,113-123' Mr.ArunBirbal,Mr.BanlceyBihariSharma, Ms.Amita Singh,Mr.S.lC.Sethiand Mr.Kunal Sharma,Advocates.for DDA in (R-7^-77& 80) • V ; Mr.MohinderSinghCharak,Advocate(R-63 and 112) UMON OF LA.APP. 16/2011 LA.APP. 19/2011 LA.APP. 22/2011 LA.APP. 90/2011 LA.APP. 93/2011 AND' LA.APP. 17/2011 LA.APP. 20/2011 LA.APP. 23/2011 LA.APP. 91/2011 LA.APP. 94/2011 LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. IvA.APP. LA.App.No. 115/2011& connectedAppealsofVillageBamholi 18/2011 21/2011 24/2011 92/2Q11 95/2011 , ; I Page!l of15 ,,-,v-v.v-=b' •'ff-p Is i s- ¥ p I 3; k-J- LA.APP. 1 5/2011 LA.APP. 167/2011 LA.APP, 171/2011 LA.APP. 174/2011 LA.APP. 178/2011 LA.APP. 186/2011 LAAPP. 192/2011 LA.APP. 204/2011 •LA.APP. 207/2011 LA.APP. 210/2011 . LA.APP. 263/2011 LA.APP. 275/2011 LA.APP. 29B/2011 LA.APP. 304/2011 LA.APP. 307/2011 ' LA.APP. 310/2011 LA.APP. 313/2011 LA.APP.31^/2011 LA.APP. 319/2011 • LA.APP. 325/2011 , LA.APP. 355/2011 • LA.APP. 358/2011 LA.APP.36^/2011 LA.APP. 492/2011 LA.APP. 495/2011 LA.APP. 499/2011 . LA.APP. 503/2011 LA.APP. 506/2011 LA.APP. 513/2011 LA.APP. 573/2011 , LA.APP. 576/2011 LA.APP. 592/2011 LA.App. 196/2011 ; LA.App. 280/2011 LA.App. 283/2011 LA.App. 287/2011 LA.APP. 133/2011 LA.APP.. 168/2011 LA.APP. 17.2/2011 LA.APP. 175/201 r LA. APP. 179/2011 LA:APP. 187/2011 LA. APP. 193/2011 LA.APP. 205/2011 LA.APP. 208/2011 LA.APP. 211/2011 LA.APP. 264/2011 LA.APP. 276/2011 LA.APP. 295/2011 LA.APP. 305/2011 LA.APP. 308/2011 LA.APP. .311/2011 v LA.APP. 314/2011 . LA.APP. 317/2011 . LA.APP. 320/2011 LA.APP. 352/2011 LA.APP.356/2011 , LA.APP.359/2011 ^ LA.APP. 490/2011 LA.APP. 493/2011 LA.APP. 497/2011 LA.APP. 501/2011 LA.APP. 504/2011 LA.APP. 507/2011 LA.APP. 524/2011 LA.APP. 574/2011 LA.APP. 577/2011 LA.APP. 645/2011 LA.App. 278/2011 LA.App. 281/2011 LA.App. 284/201.1 LA.App. 288/2011 LA.APP. 166/2011 LA.APP. 170)2011 LA.APP. 173/2011 LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. 76/2011 83/2011 89/2011 • 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.^P. 638/2011, LA.App. 279/2011' LA.App..282/2011 LA.App. 285/2011 LA.APP. 184/2011 & C.M.No. 10953/2011 (Cross-objeotion) i I ! I (Relatingto NotificationNo.9(50)/2004iaL&B/LA/13211of 04.11.2004 Section4ofthe LandAcquisitionAct, 1894&IAwardNo. 1/2007-2008cf06.08.2008,VillageBamnoli,NewDelhi) .UA.^pp,No. 115/2011&connectedAppealsofVillageBamnoli .•f % CORAMs HON'BLE

¶1Abo\ of about ?14,13,000/-

¶3Not j Collector, b upon Notifi Corporation instant vilk Notification acquired Ian had preparec MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR ORDER

01.02.2012 e captionedappealsand cross-objectionsrelateto,acquisition 00 bighas of land in Village Bamnoli, Delhi notified!for ' i PlannedDevelopmentofDelhi vide Notification,of 4"" November,2004 under the L . the Referen the rate of the consent final heari] adjudicated

¶2Land fixed by Go and AcquisitionAct, 1894 and ^since the impugnedorder of ce Court in these appealsuniformlygrants compensationat ^17,45,000/?eracre with statutorybenefits,therefore,with of learned counsel for the parties, who were presentat the ig, these matters were heard together and iare being upon by this common order. ' i 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/-acre ofleveled land in Blo(;k 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 jfore the Reference Court, appellants/claimantshad relied :ation of 24"' October, 1994f issued by the Municipal of Delhi declaring the land in 20 villages including the ge to be urbanized. Reliance was, also placed upon of 16'^ October,2000 declaringchange of land use of the i in questionand thereupon,Delhi DevelopmentAuthority ZonalDevelopmentPlan for DwarkaSub City in Dwarka, • LA.App.-Ko. 115/2011& ;onnectedAppealsof VillageBamnoli V New Delhi. •' ' i

¶4While relying upon seven sale instances(Ex.PW-l/T'toEx.W-1/13)ofthe year 1999,relatingto agriculturallandmVillage!Pochanpur purchased 3y a religious society-Radha Swanii Satsang}.Beas, and certifiedcopy of Sale Deed of 27^'^ September,2004 (Ex.PW-1/14)of VillageBharthal,enhancementin.-compensationwas sought:Reference Court upon evaluationof the evidence on record concludedthait there was no evidenceto the effect that location,potentialand utilityof the land mthe VillagesofBharthal,Pochanpurand Bamnoliis kmilarand not to-rely upon the aforesaid,sale instances as the Sale his very villagewas available. In the absence of the evidence of the'Vendor/Vendeeof the had chosen instance of t

¶5aforesaidsale instances,Reference Court had discarded sale instancesrelieduponby the appellants/claimajtits,whileadvertingto paragraphno: 29 ofthe Apex CourtdecisionmLalChandvs. Unionof India and Am., (2009) 15 SCC. 769. Before dealing with the sale instances(E.<:.R-Iand Ex.R-II)ofVillageBamnoli,ReferenceCourthad refused to apply Delhi DevelopmentAuthority auction rate for the the aforesaid commercial placing imp (supra) to.h plots or the scheduleof market rates for Vasant Vihar by icit reliance upon the Apex Court decision in Lai Chand lold that market price for the developed land cannot,be applied while detemining the market price of the undeveloped agriculturallandin Delhi. | • . To fortifythe aforesaidfinding, Referencefcourt has extensively Lssagesfrom the Apex CourtdecisionmfLalChand(supra) , had proceededto discardheavilyreliedupon instanceof

14.5 acres of the acquired land by Delhi Development he PowerDepartmentofGovernmentofNCT ofDelhi for '

¶6quoted the p and thereafte: allotment of Authority to ' LA.App.No.n5/20n& connectedAppealsofVillageBamnoli I Page; 4 of 15 I 'r •( I't V constmctio: holding as i '77. ^297 Buye devel quest of th prem 1of 715 Mega Watt Gas Based Power Plant/Project,while mder:- i i 'I '' i I ' ! The allotmentof1.5hectareoj landfor apremiumof 42 lakh per acre is an inter departmentalallotment. and seller both are agencies of state. Since no opment/constructioncan take, place on the land in ion withoutpermission-ofDBA, in view ofSection12 e Delhi Development Act, 1957 determination of 'umforallotmentoflandIn developmentarea is notan ordinarysale betweenaprudentbuyerandseller.Premium of land in such an allotmentcannot be called the market price of land which a prospectivebuyer of similar land sittingin his armchairwouldbe.willingtopay. Moreover,there is a timegap ofthreeyears between ofNotificationunder Section 4 of LA Act which is 2004 and date of allotment which is 25.11.2007. Marketprice ofland allottedafter 3years ofNotification under Section 4 of LA Act cannot be taken into considerationfor determiningmarketvalue on the date of NotificationunderSection4. As"perSection24-ofLA Act, the Courtshallnot take into considerationany increaseto the valueofthe landacquiredlikelyto accruefrom the use to which it willbeput when required."

¶78date

04.11

¶7Oh the being in the Reference C "94. aspectof the acquiredland beingdeclaredurbanizedandof developmentzone/thepertinentfindings returned by the 3urt are as under Landofpetitioneris agriculturallandalthoughit is in urbanized area and in /developmentzone. The land continued to be agriculturalland even till issuance of Notificationunder Section 4 of LA Act in the year 2004-would show that in spite of being in capital of country having explosive population, no •' residential colony, ^ed or unapprovedcame up on the land in question wouldnegatepossibilityofland in questionhaving potentialfor buildingsite even innearfuture... ! appro\ and it

¶95docume. "he petitioner'has brought no evidence, leave aside mtary evidencethat the acquired land was sifitable LA.ARp.No. 115/20]] & connected Appeals of Village Bamnoli 'f V for putting up buildings, be they residentialbr commercial or industrialas the case may be. There is no building gctiviiystartedon the landin questioneven afterpassingof a decode since area was urbanized. " \

¶8On thg question of potentialityof ti:-e acquired land, Reference Courthas tacennote ofthe fact that this acquiredland is sun'oundedon s by Villages-Bharthai; Bijwasan,fochanpurand Dhul ng that acquiredland'is in the^ vicinityof Dwarka, where DDA is developingcolonies and therefore,adoption of the minimum rates for agriculturallandfixedby the GovernmentofDelhi by the Land •collectorwas not justified.Upon consideringthe two sale October,2004 (Ej^.EL-I)and of20^'' April, 2004 (Ex.R-all four side Siras. Notici Acquisition instances of 2) of this ven^ village,ReferenceCourt had' discardedthe sale instance (Ex.R-2) as depressed ar depicting sal comparable.'

¶9In the api^ellantsthe the acquired October, 200( Delhi has not true potential the Apex Coi 5ale considerationof ?9,02,496per acre was found to be .d had chosen to rely upon the sale instance (Ex.R-1) e considerationof ?17,45,108 which was found to be instant appeals, it was'vehementlyurged on behalfof the t the effectofNotificationof 25f^'' October, 1994 declaring lands being fit for urbanizationand Notificationof 16^*' Iregardingthe changeoflanduse underthe MasterPlan of been consideredby the ReferenceCourt,to appreciatethe ofthe acquiredland. Reliancewas placeduporidecisionof It in SpecialLandAcquisitionOfficer& Am vs. MJC RafiqSaheb,(2011)7SCC 714, by learnedcounselfor the appellantsto contend that in view of the aforesaid'Notifications,the acquired land cannotbe treatedas an agriculturalland for determinationofits market value.

¶10Aforesaidcontentionis noticedfor beingoutrightlyrejectedas the LA.Api^.No. 115/201] & connectedAppealsofVillageBamnoli n V acquiredlands may not to be termedas agriculturalland but'theywere certamlyundeveloped.Government'sminimumrates for the agricultural I land applicableto Delhi have been rightly discardedby the Reference Court. So, Chance placed upon MK Rafiq Saheb (supra)]is clearly misplaced,as the ReferenceCourt has determinedthe marketvalue;of ' ! ' the acquiredlandwhilerelyinguponasaleexemplarofthisveryvillage. is no questionof discardingthe aforesaidNotifications.In 1i. There fact, inspiteof the aforesaidNotificationsno developmentactivitywas there on the of the acquir acquiredlands as no permissionwas soughtby the owners id landsunderDelhiDevelopmentAct and therefore,it can be Safely concludedthat the acquiredlands,were undevelopedand the same could not be comparedwith,dev§lope^lands for determiningthe marketvalue ofthe acquiredland. Thus, relianceplacedby appellant's counselupon UdhoDass vs. StateofHaryana&Ors., 2010 (9) SCALE 41 is of no av ail.

¶12Rejection of auction rates of Delhi Developmentij^uthority,in Sector 20 and 22 of Dwarka, by the Reference Court, isj assailed by learnedcounselfor the appellantsby contendingthatthe acquiredlandis fiilly comparable with the aforesaid land,and is in proximity and therefore,the marketvalueofthe acquiredlandoughtto have been fixed with referenceto the auctionrates ofthe DelhiDevelopmentAuthority. urt has not only rehedupon the decisionofApeX;Courtin Reference Co extensively q consideration Lai Chand vs. Union ofIndia andAnr., (2009) 15 SCC 76^ but has [aoted relevant passages therefrom to :hold that the sale of the developedlands cannotbe appliedto the lacquired lands which iire undisputedlyundeveloped.^At the hearing m these •appeals, learned counsel for the appellant could not distinguish the decisionofth(! Apex Court in Lai Chand(supra),whose ratio squarely .A.App. No. 115/2011 & CO inectedAppealsof VillageBarrmoli Page 7 of lf5 V I i appliesto tiie instantcases. Therefore.I find that the ReferenceCourt has rightlyrefusedto applyDelhiDevelopraentAuthorityauctionrates for determiningthemarketvalueoftheacquiredland. |' '

¶13Whilereiteratingthe well settledprincipleoflawthatcomparable sale instances,are the best piece of evidet|;eto be.consideredby the Court for the purposeof determiningtlie compensation.Apex Court in ision in RadhaMudaliyar Vs. SpecialTahsildar(Land Tamil Nadu Housing Board) (2010) 13 SCC 384 has its recent .de Acquisition observed as under "13. determ ^omparahlesalesinstancesare thesafestmethodfor I w land dnd as laidddwn in Shaji Kuriakosev. Indian Oil Corpn. Ltd:, it shouldsatisfy thefactors, inter alia (I) the sale must be genuine transaction; (2) the sale deed must-have been executedat the time proximateto the date ofissuanceof notificahonunderSection4oftheAct: "(3) the landcovered by the kale must he in the vicinityofthe acquiredland- (4) the landcoveredby thesalemust be similarto the acquired landand (5) sizeoftheplotofthe landcoveredby thesale be comharableto theacquired land, the sales instances shouldmeferablybe closestto the date ofnotificationas then alone it wouldsatisfy,the touchstoneoftheprinciples \ contemplatedunder Section 23 of the Act. as held in ""'""Singh vs. UnionofIndia." '• of the marketvalue ofthe acquiredland on the basis of the sale instances(Ex.PW-1/7to Ex.PW-1/14)ofthe adjoiningvillages; as. sought by the appellantsstands rightly rejected by the Reference^ •Courtas the ssle instancesofthis very villageare available.When it isi so, then there is no need to look for the sale instancesof the adjoining' villages.

¶15On the a market value o:

¶14Kanwar Fixation :oresaidreasoning,adoptionofthe L&DOrates to' fix the phe acquiredlandssoughtby the appellantsis outrightly' rejected. Appellants' counsel had relied upon decision of the Apex' t,A.Apr.No. 115/2011&connectedAppealsofVillageBamnoli Pages of 15 Court in Kh 10 SCq.745 Acquisition) 40% toward not fully de permissible, obviated in ^ sale instanci reference to ' had strongly acres appfo?^ i an Tandon vs. AllahabadDevelopmentAuthority,(2004) and in Valliyammal and Anr vs. Special Tehsildar (Land deduction of and Anr., AIR 2011 SC 2937 to assert that 3developmentchargeswas improperand where large area, ^eloped, is acquired, normally, deduction of about 33% is The need to look for sale instances in the vicinityiis dew ofthe fact that the sale instancesofthe instantvillage are available and so the requirementofconsideringthe applicabilityof the sale instances(Ex.PW-1/7to Ex.PW-1/14)would arise only when 3 (Ex.R-l).is found to be not comparable. Therefore, ;he aforesaiddecisionsby learnedcounselfor the appellants is of no cons3quence. ,

¶16During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the appellants relied upon the instanceof allotmentof 14.-5 hectares(37 imately) by Delhi DevelopmentAuthority to the Power DepartmentbfDelhi Governmentto leaseholdbasis at a consideration of ^297.42 enhancement above the ma the aforesaid lacs per acre with 2.5% amiual ground rent,to claim ofcompensationat the rate of^40 lacsper acre over and rketvalue fixed by the ReferenceCourt as the allotmentof land was out ofthe acquiredland. With much vehemence. It was assertedby learnedcounsellor the appellants'that 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 of the appellants,it was pointedout learnedseiiorcounsel for the Respondentsthat aforesaidallotment tV Delhi DevelopmentAuthorityto Power DepartmentofGovernment LA.App,Np. 115/2011 & ccnnectedAppealsofVillageBaiflnoli,- i of Delhi was made in November, 2007 and the possession of the aforesaidlardwas handedoverto the PowerDepartmentofGovernment ofDelhi in February,2008 and the acquisition9fthe land in questionis of November,.2004 and during the interveningperiod land rates had steadilyincreasedand therefore,aforesaidallotmentcannotbe made the ermine the market value of the acquired land as t basis to de interveninggap is of threeyears. ;

¶18The factorsto be consideredto determinethe marketvalue oftie acquiredlands as reiteratedby the;ApexCourtm-GeneralManager,Oil Gas CorporationLtdvs, RameshbhaiJivanbhaiPateland .4 see 745, are as under:- , j 'rimarily, the increase in land prices depends on ' and Natural Anr, (2008) "13. : fourfactors:situationofthe land, natureofdevelopmentin ading area, availabilityoflandfor developmentin surrou - 'j t.v Lfl the area, and the demandfor land in the afea. In rural areas, unless there is any prospectofdevelopmentin the vicinity, increase in prices would be slow; steady and gradual,withoutany suddenspurtsorjumps..On the other nurbanor semi-urbanareas, wherethe development Vwherethe dmandforlandis Ugh andwherethere ruction activityall around, the'escalationin market at a much higherrate, as comparedto rural areas. In somepocketsin bigcities, due to rapiddevelopmentand high d^mand for land, the escalations in prices^ ha.ve touched even 30% to 50% or more per year, during the nineties. ;r

¶14^On the other extreme, in remote rural areas where there^was no chance ofany developmentand hardly any buyers,^Shepricesstagnatedforytars or rosemarginallyat a^ nominalrate of 1% or 2% per annum. There is thus a significantdifferencein increasesin marketvalue oflands 7 T/7 ^ ^ - 7 *T« hand, i isfaste is cons price is i/semi-urbanareasandincreasesin marketvalueof the ruralareas. Therefore,ifthe increasein market urban/semi-urbanareas is about 10% to 15%per in urhai lands in value in _ ^ ^ a ^ f annum, thecorrespondingincreasesin rural areas wouldat LA.App. No. 115/2011 & co inectedAppealsof VillageBamnoli he best be only aroundhalfofit, that-isabout5% to 7.5%:per annum. This rule ofthumb refers to thegeneral trend in the nineties,to be adoptedin the absenceof clear and specific evidence relating to increase in prices. Where there\are specialreasonsfor applyinga higher rate of increase, or any specific evidence relating to the actual increase in prices, then the increaseto be appliedwoulddependupon the same. • i I

¶15Normally, recourse is taken to the mode^' of determining the market value by providing appropriate escalationover theprovedmarketvalueofnearbylands 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.Thesaid methodis reasonably safe where the relied-o'n sale transactions/ acquisitionsprecede the subjectacquisitionby only afew years, that is uptofour tofiveyears. Beyond,that it may be unsafe, even ifit relatesto a neighbouringland Whlitm.ay be a j^eliablestandardifthe gap is only afew years, may become unsafe and unreliablestandardwhei'e the gap is larger.For example,for determiningihe 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" ofannual increase may itself undergo 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 ONGC (supr nindful of the ratio oT the decisionof the Apex'Court in - • ' i I ^a), I find that the instance of institutional allotment (Ex.PW13/l)|of the year 2007 heavily rehed upon by the appellanjs wouldnot be ja usefulguideto determinethe marketvalue ofthe.land in question, as t from the date he said allotmentwas made after a period of three yea^s ; ' • • • i of acquisitionof the land in question.It is so said because the sale exemjDlarofthe relevantperiod,ofthisveryvillagein questionis LA.App.No. 115/2011& connectedAppealsofVillageBamnoli I I , •available,therefore,the aforesaidinstanceof allotmentof land to the i ' ' PowerDepartinentofGovernmentofDelhihas been.rightlyrejectedjby the Reference Court. ! ! : ' i •

¶20Now jvhatis requiredto be consideredis whetherthe saleinstance (Ex.R-l)reliedupon by the ReferericeCourtis acomparableinstanceor not. Undispytedly,sale instance(Ex.R-l)is ofthis veryvillageand is of October, 2004 whereas the land in question was acquired vide Notification!of November, 2004. Evidenljy, aforesaid sale instance (Ex.R-l)IS i|ot onlyrelevantbut is comparaj^leas it has not been shown by the appeljantsas to what are the distinguishingfeatureswhichwould make it mapplicableto determinethe marketvalueofthe acquiredlands. Fmdmgofthe ReferenceCourtthatwhenthe sale instance(Ex.R-l)was exhibitedno jobjectionwas raisedby the claimantsand as per section51-Aof Land RequisitionAct, 1894, a, certified cojpy of aregistered , documentis jacceptablein evidenceand since this documenthas been . tenderedmeyidenceby the Respondents,the same can be read,against them,remainsunimpeachable. I

¶21Howeyer,to meetthe aforesaidfindingofthe ReferenceCourt, it was submitte|lby learnedcounselfor the appellantsthat opportunityto lead rebuttal^videnceto showthat'saleinstance(Ex'.R-l)is not reliable or bonafide, an applicationto leadrebuttalevidencewas filed beforethe •ReferenceCourtwhichwas illegallyrejectedvide orderof25"| August, 2010 and therefore, this matter needs to be remanded back to the Reference Coprt to enable the appellantsto! lead rebuttal evidence to . demolishaforesaidsaleinstance(Ex.R-l). ;• . ! ' |

¶22Firstof;all,appellantsoughtto have objected,tothe exhibitionof ^foresaidsale instance(Ex.R-l).Havingnot done so, appellantshave to face the legaj consequences. Secondly, even if application of the •LA-App.No. 115/2011& connectedAppealsofVillageBamnoli. % appellantsfor leadingrebuttal evidencewas rejectedby the Reference Court,nothinghad stoppedthem from movangan 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^s to how the sale-instance(Ex.R-1) is notgenuine/reliableor comparable.

23.. In the light of the evidence on record, I am of the .considered ^ •opinionthatthe ReferenceCourthas rightlyrelieduponthe sale instance ' (Ex.R-1)to detenninethe marketvalueofthe acquiredlands.Findingino ' meritmthei instantappealsof claimantsand cross-objection;by one! of .. them, the-sameare dismissedwhileleavingthe-partiesto beartheirown - costs. ' • , , , j

¶24So far as appeals of the Respondentsare concerned,;I find no substanceinjthem, becausethe determinationofthe marltetvalueofthe acquiredlandby the ReferenceCourthas been dope whilerelyingupon the sale instance (Ex.R-1) produced by the Respondentsthemselves. Regardmgdoingawayofthe classification^fthe acquiredland into'A' block and-'B' Block by the ReferenceCourt is concerned,I fmd that this classificationhas areasonable'basis.That is to say, land with top soiland the landwithouttop soil cannotbe putat paras the marketvalue ofthe landwithouttop soilis boundto be lesserthanthe marketvalueof thelandwithtop soil.

¶25Endorsingthepricedifferentiationbetween'A' categoryland and 'B' category land, my esteemed brother Pradeep Nahdrajog, J., in a recentdecisionin LA.App.No.266/2008,titledas Jm Singh&Ors. vi. UnionofIndia&Ors., renderedon 23'" August2011, whilerelyingon the decision of the DivisionBench of this;court in GajraJSingh vs. [/«/•<.« 2006(VI)AD Delhi 13, hasIjeldas under:- ^ .^A.Ap-p.No. ]15/2011& connectedAppealsofVillageBamnoli r "S6. In GajrajSingh'scase (supra), thepricedifferential worked out was t25,000/- per acre. /. have noted hereinabovethat the acquisition in Gajraj Singh's case pertainedto the date 15.11.1996.In GajrajSingh'scase the , pricefor Category 'A 'landdeterminedwas.t9,76,121Aper acre andfor Category 'B'land the price determined\was ' <9 51:121/-per acre and the price differentialcomes to ' about 2.5% with reference to the price of Category] 'A' land. I :• 1?' I

¶57I thus hold that Gajraj Singh's case should be my guidingstarfor price differentialin the instant cases as welland thusI holdthatwhereverCategory 'A Category Category 'C have to be differentiatedonprice, the differential should be 2.5% " t ' '1

¶26Consequentially,the findingofthe ReferenceCourtregWingthe 'A' categoryand 'B' categoiylahdbeingsimilarlysituatedhavingsarpe potentiality-and becausethey are acquiredfor the same,publicpurpose, cannotbe sustainedin the lightofthe aforesaidobservations.However, claim of the Union of India, to seek adoption of the minimmn indicative-priceof agriculturalland in Delhi while forgettingthat the Appellant-UOI itse|fhas relieduponthe sale instance(Ex.R-l),merits rejection.

¶27In viewoftheafore-goingnarration,Ifindthatno substancein the appeals filed by claimantsas well as in cross objectionof one of the clauBantsand the same are dismissed.So far as the appeals'filedby UnionofIndiaare concerned,the same are partlyallowedto the extent that the compensationawarded by the Reference Court for the 'b!' categoryof lands (as noticed in the Award of the Land Acguisitioi ; -Collector)is reducedfi-om?17,45,000p..acreto ?17,01,375/-;,eracre: •28. Beforepartingthis order,Iwould like ra bring on recordthat thi .brevity of this order is occasioned by the fact that the impugned judgmernis well consideredon facts and the law. Therefore,I have •App.^No.115/20]1&connectedAppealsOfVillageBamnoli' ' ' I purposefullynot adverted to the entire evidence on record| and the relevant evidence, i.e. of the. sale exemplars has been taken, int|o consideration by me in this order.

¶29The above captionedappealsand crosg-objectionare disposedof with directionto the Registryto remitthe compensationamount,ifani, depositedby eitherside with the RegistrarGeneralofthis Court,to the concerned Reference Court. i ! February 01,2012 pkb/rs ML GAUR) JUDGE p.'App,^f,Q. 115/2011&connectedAppealsofVillageBamnoli

+ % IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI LA.APP. 176/2011 UOI Through: versus NARAIN SINGH & ANR. Through: FEBRUARY 01, 2012 pkb 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 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) Respondent 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 Kimar, 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