UOI v. Om Dutt & Anr

ORDER

23.02.2012

¶1Learned counsel for the appellant/UOI states that fate of this appeal would be governed by LA.APP No.115/2011 'Jai Prakash Vs. UnionofIndia &Another', renderedon 1^'February,2012.

¶2In the light of aforesaid,this appeal is disposedof in terms of decisionin LA APP No.115/2011 'Jai Prakash Vs. Union ofIndia & Another',renderedon 1'' February,2012 with no ordersasto costs. FEBRUARY 23,2012 b IL GAUR, J a 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. • ! % IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on: Januan^ 12, 2011 Pronounced on: February 01, 2012 LA.APP. 115/2011(VILLAGEBAMNOLI) JAI PRAKA SH Through: UNION OF LA.APP. 16/2011 LA.APP. 19/2011 LA.APP. 22/2011 LA.APP. 90/2011 LA.APP.93/ioi 1 ..... Appellant Mr.B.S.Maaii,Mr.AmitMaan,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 appellantin R-112 and respondentin R-63 Mi-.B.D.Sharma,Mr.S.K.Rout, Mr.B.K.Routray,Mr.VinayKumar, Advocates in (R-84to 86, 88-102,104) Mr.S.K.Routand Mr.B.K.Routray,Advocates (in R-74 and for respondenton R-79) versus NDIA&ANR. Respondents Through; Mr.SanjayPoddar,SeniorAdvocatewith Mr.SanjayPathak,Ms.NavlinSwain, Ms.K.K.Kiranand Mr.S.N.Pandey,Advocates forUOI Mr. YeeshuJain, Advocatefor UOI (R-1 to 5, 18-37,47, 49,50-52,55-73,75-81,113-123 ' Mr.ArunBirbal,Mi'.BanlceyBihariSharma, ' Ms.Amita Singh, Mir.S.K.Sethiand Mr.Kunal Sharma,Advocatesfor DDA in (R-74-77& ^ 80) , ^ Mr.MohinderSinghCharak,Advocate(R-63i and 112) ' ' : AND LA.APP. 17/2011 LA.APP. 20/2011 LA.APP. 23/2011 LA.APP. 91/2011 LA.APP. 94/2011 •A.App,No. 115/2011& connectedAppealsof VillageBamnoli~ LA.APP. 18/2011 LA.APP. 21/2011 LA.APP. 24/2011 LA.APP. 92/2011 LA.APP. 95/2011 Page 1 of IS !?? I I 6: 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. L15/2pll 167/2^11 .171/2011 174/^:0:11 178/2(|ll 186/2ail 192/20'11 204/20 U 207/2011 210/2011 263/201L 275/2011 29B/2011 304/2011 307/2011 310/2011 313/2011 316/2011 319/2011 325/2011 355/2011 358/2011 36^/2011 492/2011 495/2011 499/2011 503/2011 50d/2011 513/2011 196/ 280/ 283/ 287/ ^2011 ^2011 '2011 2011 2011 2011 2011 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. 133/2011 168/2011 172/2011, 175/2011 179/2011 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 LA.APP. 173/2011 LA.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. 363/201,1 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.5-^5/2011 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)/2004/L&B/LA/13211of 04.11.2004 Section4ofthe LandAcquisitionAct, 1894& AwardNo 1/2007-2008of06.08.2008,VillageBamnoli,New.Delhi) , LA.App. No. 115/2011 & connectedAppealsofVillageBa^'fioli :% CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR ORDER • • 01.02.2012

¶1Abo\' of about e captionedappealsand cross-opjactionsrelateto acquisition 00 bighas of land in Village Bamnoli, Delhi notifiedifor PlannedDevelopmentofDelhi vide Notificationof4'^ November,2004 under the LandAcquisitionAct, 1894 and since the impugnedorder of the ReferenceCourt in these appeals uniformlygrants compensationat f17,45,000per acre with statutorybenefits,therefore,with of learned counsel for the parties,who' were presentat the ig, 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 periodhi question,had determinedthe marketvalue ofthe acquired land mquestionat the aforesaidrate of 5,70,000/-peracre ofleveled land in Bloc^k A, whereas for the acquiredland excavatedbeyond one meter, i.e., 31ock B land, compensationwas detenninedat the rate of ?14,13,000/-acre.

¶3Not satistied with the aforesaid Award of Land Acquisition the rate of the consent final hearii adjudicated

¶2Land fixed by Go Collector, b^ upon Notifi Corporation instant villa Notification fore the Reference Court, appellants/claimantshad relied cation 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 upon of 16'^ October,2000 declaringchange of land use of the acquiredland in questionand thereupon,Delhi DevelopmentAuthority had preparedZonalDevelopmentPlan for DwarkaSub City in Dwarka, LA.App.No. 115/2011 & :onnectedAppealsofVillageBamnolj New Delhi.

¶4Whil relying upon seven sale instances(Ex.PW-1/7to Ex.PW-1/13)ofthe year 1999,relatingto agriculturallandin VillagePochanpur purchased certified co had chosen instance of t 3y a religious society-Radha Swami Satsang,•Beas, and py of Sale Deed of 27^'' September,2004 (Ex.PW-1/14)of VillageBharthal,enhancementin compensationwas sought. Reference Court upon evaluationof the evidence on record concludedthat there was no evidenceto the effectthat location,potentialand utilityof the land in the VillagesofBharthal,Pochanpurand Bamnoli'issimilarand not to rely upon the aforesaid sale instances as the Sale his very villagewas available.

¶5In the absence of the evidence of the Vendor/Vendeeof the aforesaid sale instances.Reference Court had discardedthe aforesaid saleinstancesrelieduponby the appellants/claimants,whileadvertingto paragraphno: 29 ofthe Apex Courtdecisionin Lai Chandvs. Unionof India and Am., (2009) 15 SCC 769. Before dealing with the sale 'X.R-Iand Ex.R-II)ofVillageBamnoli,RisferenceCourthad instances (E: refused to apply Delhi DevelopmentAuthority auction rate for the commercial placing imp plots or the scheduleof market rates for Vasant Vihar by icit reliance 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 agricultural land in Delhi. To fortifythe aforesaidfinding,.ReferenceCourt has extensively quotedthe passagesfrom the Apex Courtdecisionin Lai Chand(supra) and thereafte allotment of Authority to • had proceededto discardheavilyreliedupon instanceof

14.5 acres of the acquired land by Delhi Development ;he PowerDepartmentof GoveitamentofNCT ofDelhi for LA.App.No.1]5/20]1&connectedAppealsofVillageBamnoli ' 'age 4 of 15 Gonstmction holding as under:- of 715 Mega Watt Gas Based Power Pkntyproject,while

¶7"77. ^297 Buye devel The allotmentof1.5 hectareoflandfor. 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 questionwithoutpermissionofDDA in view.,ofSection 12 of the Delhi Development Act, fp57 determination of •umfor allotmentofland in developmentarea isnotan ordinarysale betweenaprudentbuyerandseller.Premium of lai ' • ' " . price id in such an allotmentcannot be called the market of land which a prospectivebuyer of similar land sittin^^in his armchairwouldbe willingtopay. Moreover,there is a timegapofthreeyears 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 NotificationunderSection 4;, As perSection24 ofLA Act, the Courtshallnot take into considerationany increaseto ' the va^ueofthe landacquiredlikelyto accruefrom the use to which it will beput when required." On th{; aspectofthe acquiredland beingdeclaredurbanizedand of developmentzone, the pertinentfindings returned by the 3urt are as under

¶78date

04.11 being in the Reference C ^ "94. 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 shoM^ that in spite of being in capital of country having explosive population, no residential colony, approvedor unapprovedcame up on the land in question would negatepossibilityof larid in questionhaving alfor buildingsiteeven in nearfuture..

¶95The petitioner has brought no evidence, leave aside documentaryevidencethat the acquired land was suitable and it potent LA.App.No. n 5/2011 & connectedAppealsofVillageBamnoli for putting up buildings, be they residential or commercial or industrialas the case may be. There is no building activiiystartedon the landin questioneven afterpassingof a decade since area was urbanized. "

¶8On th Court has ta all four side question of potentialityof the acquired land, Reference cen note of the fact that this acquired land is surrounded on s by Villages-Bharthal, Bijwasan,Pochanpurand Dhul Siras. Noticingthat acquiredland is in the vicinityof Dwarka, where eloping colonies and therefore, adoption of the minimum culturalland fixed by the GovernmentofDelhi by the Land 'collectorwas not justified.Upon consideringthe two sale October,2004 (Ex.R-l)and of20"' April, 2004 (Ex.R-DDA is dev rates for agri Acquisition instances of 2) of this veiy village,ReferenceCourfhad discardedthe sale instance (Ex.R-2) as depressed ar depicting sal comparable.

¶9In the a^ppellants th •the acquired iale considerationof ?9,02,496per acre was found to be id had chosen to rely upon the sale instance (Ex.R-l) e considerationof 7,45,1.08 which was found to be ipstant appeals, it was vehementlyurged on behalfofthe Et the effectofNotificationof24"' October, 1994 declaring lands being fit for urbanizationand Notificationof 16''^ October,2000 regardingthe changeoflanduse under,theMasterPlan of Delhi has not been consideredby the ReferenceCourt to appreciatethe truepotentialofthe acquiredland. Reliancewas placedupon decisionof the Apex Coirt in SpecialLandAcquisitionOfficer& Anr vs'. M,K. RafiqSaheb, [2011)1SCC 714, by learnedcounselfor the appellantsto contend that mview of the aforesaidNotifications,the acquired land cannotbe treatedas an agriculturalland for determinationof its market value. . . i

¶10Aforesaidcontentionis noticedfor beingoutrightlyrejectedas the LA.App, No. 115/201] & connectedAppealsof VillageBamnoli ir acquiredlards may not to be termed as agriculturalland but they were certamlyundeveloped.Govermnent'sminimumrates for the agricultural land applicableto Delhi have been rightly discardedby the Reference Court. So,,relianceplaced upon MJT. Rafiq Saheb (supra), is clearly misplaced,as the ReferenceCourt has determinedthe marketvalue:of the acquiredlandwhilerelyinguponasaleexemplarofthis veryvillage. is no questionofdiscardingthe aforesaidNotifications.In

¶11There fact, inspiteof the aforesaidNotificationsno developmentactivitywas there on the of the acquir acquiredlands as no permissionwas soughtby the owners 3d lands underDelhiDevelopmentAct and therefore,it can be safely coiicludedthat the acquiredlands were undevelopedand the same could i market value lot be comparedwith developedlands for determiningthe ofthe acquiredland. Thus, relianceplacedby appellant's counselupon UdhoDass vs. StateofHaryana&Ors., 2010 (9) SCALE 41 is of no a\ ail.

¶12Rejection of auction rates of Delhi DevelopmentAuthority, in Sector 20 and 22 of Dwarlca, by the Reference Court, is assailed by learnedcounEeifor the appellantsby contendingthatthe acquiredhind is fully comparable with the aforesaid land and is iii proximity and marketvalueofthe acquiredland oughtto have been fixed therefore, the with referenceto the auctionrates;ofthe Delhi DevelopmentAuthority. ReferenceCojrthas not onlyreliedupon the decisionofApex Court in Lai Chand viv Union ofIndia andAnr., (2009) 15 SCC 769 but has extensively q consideration lands which joted relevant passages therefrom to hold that the sale of the developedlands carmot be appliedto the acquired are undisputedlyundeveloped. At the hearing in these appeals, learned counsel for the appellant could not distinguish the decisionof th(; Apex Court in Lai Oawi/(supra),whose ratio squarely LA.App,No. 115/201.1& co inectedAppealsofVillageBamnoli applies to the instantcases. Therefore,I find that the ReferenceCourt has rightlyrefusedto applyDelhi DevelopmentAuthorityauctionrates foi determining the marketvalueofthe acquiredland.. reiteratingthe well settledprincipleoflawthat comparable

¶13While sale instances,are the best piece of evidenceto be consideredby the Court for the its recent de Acquisition purposeof detemiiningthe compensation.Apex Court in' ision in Radha Mudaliyar Kv. SpecialTahsildar(Land Tamil Nadu Housing Board) (2010) 13 SCC 384 has observed as under:- "13: determ laid do should comparablesalesinstancesare thesafestmethodfor lining the market value ofthe acquiredland and as ywn in ShajiKuriakosey.'Indian Oil Corpn. Ltd., it ' satisfy the factors, inter alia (1) the sale must be genuine^transaction; (2) the sale deed must have been executedat the time proximateto the date ofissuanceof notificationunderSection4ofthe Act; (3) the landcovered by the sxxle must he in the vicinityofthe acquiredland; (4) the landcoveredby thesalemustbe similarto. the acquired landand (5) size oftheplotofthe landcoveredby the sale \ be comparableto theacquired land l^e sales instances shouldpreferablybe closestto the-dateofnotificationas - then alone it wouldsatisfythe touchstoneoftheprinciples contemplatedunder Section 23 of the Act, as held in . KanwarSinghvs. UnionofIndia."

¶14Fixationofthe marketvalue ofthe acquiredland on the basis of the sale instances(Ex.PW-1/7to Ex.PW-1/14)ofthe adjoiningvilla,ges, as sought by the appellants stands rigidly rejected by the Reference Court as the sele instancesofthis very villageare available.When it is so, then there is no need to look for the sale instancesof the adjoining villages.

¶15On the a:: market value o :oresaidreasoning,adoptionofthe L&DO ratesto fix the' fthe acquiredlands soughtby the appellantsis.outrightly rejected. AppeJlants'counsel had rehed upon decision of the Apex, 115/20]]& coMectedAppealsofVillageBamnoli 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, deductionof about 33%' is permissible. The need to look for sale instances in the vicinity:is obviatedin view ofthe fact that the sale instancesofthe instantvillage are available and so the requirementof consideringthe applicabilityof the sale instances(Ex.PW-1/7to Ex.PW-1/14)would arise only when sale instance (Ex.R-1) is found to be i^syt comparable. Therefore, i , . - referencetoyhe aforesaiddecisionsby learnedcounselfor the appellants is of no consequence.

¶16During the course of hearing,,learnedcounsel for the appellants had strongly acres approx relied upon the instanceof allotmentof 14.5 hectares(37 miately) by Delhi DevelopmentAuthority to the Power Department"ifDelhi Governmenton leaseholdbasis at aconsideration of ^297.42 enhancement above the ma the aforesaid lacs per acre with 2.5% annual ground rent to claim ofcompensationat the rate lacsperacre over and irketvalue fixed by the ReferenceCourt as the allotmentof land was out ofthe acquiredland. With much vehemence, 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 of the appellants,it was pointedout -by learnedseiior counsel for the Respondentsthat aforesaidallotment ^slopmentAuthorityto Power DepartmentofGovernment by Delhi Dev .^A.App.No. 115/201] & CC'nnectedAppealsofVillageBainnoli of Delhi was made in November, 2007 and the possession of tiie afoiesaidlardwas handedoverto the PowerDepartmentofGovernment ofDelhi in February,2008 and the,acquisitionofthe land in questionis of November, 2004 and during the interveningperiod land rates had steadilyincreasedand therefore,aforesaidallotmentcannotbe made the basis to de;ermine the market value of the acquired land as the . interveninggap is ofthreeyears. 'I

¶18The factorsto be consideredto determinethe marketvalue ofthe acquiredlands as reiteratedby the Apex Courtin GeneralManager,Oil Gas CorporationLtd vs. RameshbhaiJivanbhaiPateland .4 see 745, are as under:- and Natural Am, (2008)

¶13Primarily, the increase in land prices depends on fourfactors:situationofthe land, natureofdevelopmentin surroundingarea, availabilityoflandfor developmentin the area, and the demandfor land in the area. In rural areas, unless there is any prospectofdevelopmentin 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 demandforlandis highandwherethere IS constructionactivityall around, thekscalation in market price at a much higherrate, as comparedto rural areas. In somepocketsin bigcities, due to rapiddevelopmentand 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 as no chance ofany developmentand hardly any thepricesstagnatedforyearsor rose marginallyat a nomiy^al rate of1% or 2% per annum. There is thus\ a significc^ntdifferencein increasesin marketvalue oflands in urban/semi-urbanareasandincreasesin marketvalueof lands in the ruralareas. Therefore,ifthe increasein market value in urban/semi-urbanareas is about10% to 15%>per annum, the correspondingincreasesin ruralareaswouldat there w buyers. LA.App. No. 115/2011 & coinectedAppealsof VillageBamnoli Page 10 of,15 best only aroundhalfofit, that is about5% to 7.5%per annurri. This rule of thumb refers to tiae general trend in the nineties, to be adoptedin the absenceofclear and specific ; evidence relating to increase in prices. JVhere there are i specialreasonsfor applyinga higher rate of increase, or any specific evidence relating to the actual increase in ' prices, then the increaseto be appliedwoulddependupon the same.

¶15Normally, recourse is taken , to the mode of determining the market value by providing appropriate escalationover theprovedmarketvalue ofnearbylands in previous years (as evidenced by sale transactions or acquisitions), where there is no evidence of any conterriporaneous sale transactions or acquisitions of comparable lands in the neighbourhood.The said methodis reasonably safe where the relied-on sale ti'-ansactions/ acquisitionsprecede the subjectacquisitionby only afew years, that is uptofour tofiveyear's. Beyondthat it may be unsafe, even ifit relatesto a neighbouringland. What may be a reliablestandardifthe gap is only afew years, may becom^'i 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 occurrenceofvaryingperiods ofstagnationin prices or sudderi\ spurts in prices affecting the veiy standard of increase. " ' I • . • •• I . • •

¶19Being mindful of the ratio of the decisionof the Apex Court in ONGC.(supra), I fmd that the instance'of institutional allotment (Ex.PW13/l)1of the 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 datejofacquisitionofthe landin question.It.is so said because the sale exemplarofthe relevantperiodofthis veryvillagein questionis LA.App.No. 115/2011& connectedAppealsofVillageBamnoli -available.Therefore,the aforesaidinstanceof allotmentof land to the PowerDepartmentofGovernmentofDelhihas been rightlyrejectedby the Reference Court.

¶20Now whatis requiredto be consideredis whetherthe sale instance (Iix.R-1)rel|eduponby the ReferenceCourtis acomparableinstanceor not. Undispiitedly,sale instance(Ex.R-1)is ^ofthis veryvillageand is of October, 2004 whereas the land in question was acquired vide Notification!of November, 2004. Evidently, aforesaid sale instance (Ex.R-1)is i|ot onlyrelevantbut is comparableas it^hasnot been shown by the appellantsas to what are the distinguishingfeatureswhichwould make it inapplicableto determinethe marketvalueofthe acquiredlands. Findingofthe ReferenceCourtthatwhen the saleinstance(Ex.R-1)was exhibitedno bisectionwas raisedby the claimantsand as persection51-Aof Land 'AcquisitionAct, 1894, a certified copy of a registered documentis |acceptablein evidence and since this documenthas been tenderedmeyidenceby the Respondents,the same can be read against them,remainsunimpeachable. !

¶21Howeyer,to meetthe aforesaidfindingofthe ReferenceCourt, it was submittejiby learnedcounselfor the appellantsthat opportunityto lead rebuttalevidenceto show that sale instance(Ex.R-1)is not reliable or bonafide, an applicationto leadrebuttalevidence-wasfiled beforethe ReferenceCourtwhich was illegallyrejectedvide orderof25"' August, 2010 and therefore, this matter needs to be remanded back to the Reference Co^rt to enable the appellantsto lead rebuttal evidence to demolishaforesaidsaleinstance(Ex.R-1).

¶22Fhst of|all,appellantsoughtto have objectedto the exhibitionof aforesaidsaleinstance(Ex.R-1).Havingnot done so, appellantshave to face the lega| consequences. Secondly, even if application of the LA.App-.No. ]15/20!1&connectedAppealsofVillageBamnoli 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 saleinstance(Ex.R-1) .is not genuine/reliableor comparable.

¶23In the light of the evidence on, record, I am of the considered opinionthatthe ReferenceCourthas rightlyrelieduponthe sale instance (Ex.R-1)to detemiinethe marketvalueofthe acquiredlands.Findingno merit mthe instantappeals of claimantsand cross-objectionby one of them, the same are dismissedwhile leavingthe partiesto beartheirown costs.

¶24So far as appeals of the Respondentsare concerned,I find no substancemthem, becausethe determinatichofthe marketvalue ofthe acquiredland by the ReferenceCourthas been done whilerelyingupon the sale instance (Ex.R-1) produced by the Respondent^themselves. ; Regardingdoingawayofthe classificationofthe.acquired!landinto '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 lesserth^nthe marketvalueof the landwith top soil.

¶25Endorsingthe pricedifferentiationbetween'A' categoryland and 'B' category land, my esteemed brother Pradeep Nandrajog, J., in a recentdecisionin LA.App.No.266/2008,titledas JaiSingh&Ors. 4. VnionofIndia&Ors.. renderedon 23'" August2011,whilerelyingon the decision of the DivisionBench of this court in Gajmj Singh vs. UnionofIndia. 2006(VI) AD Delhi 13, has held as under:- ^A.App.No. n5/2011 cS: connectedAppealsofVillageBamnoli ! "56. In GajrajSingh'scase (supra), thepricedifferential worked out was ^25,000/- per acre. I' have noted hereinabove that the acquisition in Gajraj Singh's case pertainedto the date 15.11.1996In GajrajSingh'scase the pricefor Categoiy 'A 'landdeterminedwas ^9,76,121/-per (^re andfor Category 'B' land the price determinedwas <9 51,121/-per acre and the price differentialcomes to about 2.5% with reference.tothe price of Category 'A' land.

¶57I thus hold that Gajraj Singh's case should be my guidingstarfor price.differentialin the instant cases as ^^ell and thusI holdthatwhereverCategory 'A', Category ^ Category'Chave to be differentiatedonprice, the dijferential should be 2.5%:" \

¶26Consequentially,the findingofthe ReferenceCourtregardingthe 'A' categoiyand 'B' categoryland beingsimilarlysituatedhavingsame potentialityand becausethey are acquiredfor the same publicpurpose, cannotbe sustainedin the lightofthe aforesaidobservations.Hovrever! the claim of the Union of India, to seek adoption of the minimum mdicative-priceof agriculturalland in Delhi while forgettingthat the Appellant-UOI itselfhas reliedupon the sale instanpe(Ex,R-l),merits ' rejection. ' '

¶27In ™wofthe,afore-goingnarration,Ifindthatno substancein the appeals filed by claunantsas well as in cross objectionof one of the claimantsand the same ai-e dismissed. So far as the appeals filed by bnionofIndiaare 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 tlte Land Acquisition Collector).s reducedfromri7,45,000;,..acreto?17,01,375/-;,.racre

¶28^Beforepartingthis order,Iwould like to bringon recordthat the revity of.this order is occasioned by the fact that the impugned judgment,s well consideredon fects and the law. Therefore;Ihave LA.Ap,.No.115/2011&connectedAppeal,ofVillageBamnoli purposefullynot adverted to the entire evidence on record' and the lelevant evidence, i.e. of the sale exemplars has ibeen taken into consideration by me in this order.

¶29The above captionedappeals and cross-objectionare disposedof with directionto the Registryto remitthe compensationamount,ifany, depositedby eitherside with the RegistrarGeneralofthis Court, to the concerned Reference Court. February 01, 2012 pkb/rs f,44pp,No, 1.15/2011&connectedAppealsofVillageBamnoli NIL GAUIR) JUDGE- • ^

i $-3 + % IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI LA.APP. 181/2011 UOI Appellant Through Mr. Yeeshu Jain, Advocate versus OM DUTT & ANR. Respondent Through Mr. S. K. Sethi, Advocate for DDA/Respondent No.2 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR