Union of India v. Yudhveer Singh & Anr

ORDER

01.02.2012 For orders see LA.App.No.115/2011,titled as Jai Prakash vs. Union ofIndia & A nr. FEBRUARY 01, 2012 pkb 5UNILGAUR) 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. % 4-IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on: Januan' 12, 2011 Pronounced on: February 01, 2012 LA.APP. 115/2011(VILLAGE BAMNOLI) JAI PRAKASH Through: Appellant Mr.B.S.Maan, Mr.Amit Maan, Mr.R.S.Verma, Mr.Jai Prakash, Ms.Smita Maan and Mr.Jitin I Tewathia, Advocates (R-14-16, 22, 30,.34, 38-45,51-53) Mr.Mohinder Singh Charak, Advocate for appellantin R-112 and respondentin R-63 Mr.B.D.Sharma, Mr.S.K.Rout, i Mr.B.K.Routray,Mr.Vinay Kumar, Advocates in (R-84to 86, 88-102, 104) Mr.S.K.Routand Mr.B.K.Routray,Advocates (in R-74 and for respondentonR-79) versus | I "^DIA&ANR. Respondents hrough: Mr.Sanjay Poddar, Senior Advocate with Mr.SanjayPathalc,Ms.NavlinSwain, Ms.K.K.Kiranand Mr.S.N.Pandey,Advocates for UOI 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.K.Sethi and Mr.Kunal Sharma,Advocatesfor DDA in(R-74-77& 80) I Mr.MohinderSinghCharak,Advocate(R-63 ' and 112) , UNION OF I LA.APP. 16/2011 LA.APP. 19/2011 LA.APP.22/2^011 LA.APP. 90/2011 LA.APP. 93/2011 AND LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. 17/2011 20/2011 23/2011 91/2011 94/2011 LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. -A.App.No. 115/2011&ccmnectedAppealsofVillageBamnoli 18/2011 21/2011 24/2011 92/2011 95/2011 Page 1 ofJ5 ' 1 ' ^ ^ ^ V '' 'w. jl •A-LA.APP. 115/2011 LA.APP. 167/2011 LA. APP. 171/2011 ,LA.APP.17)/2011 LA.APP. 178/2011 LA.APP. 186/2011 LA.APP. 19i/2011 LA.APP. 204/2011 LA.APP. 207/2011 LA.APP. 210/2011 LA.APP. 263/2011 LA.APP. 275/2011 LA.APP. 293/2011 LA.APP. 304/2011 LA.APP. 3071/2011 LA.APP. 310/2011 LA.APP. 313/2011 liA.APP.316/2011 LA.APP.319^2011 LA.APP.325(2011 LA.APP. 355/2011 LA.APP.358j2011 LA.APP.364{2011 LA.APP.492j2011 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. 172/2011 LA. APP. 175/2011 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 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. 284/2011 LA.App.288/2011 LA.APP. 166/2011 LA.APP. 170/2011 LA.APP. 173/2011 LA.APP. 176/2011 LA. APP. 183/2011 ^.APP. 189/2mi ^^aXpP. 194/201]) 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) No.9(50)/2004/L&B/LA/13211of 04 11 2004 l-^.ApR,No. 115/2011&connectedAppealsofVillageBamnoli Pa^e2ofl5 % CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR ORDE

01.02.2012

¶1Above: captioned appeals and cross-objections relate to acquisitibn 30 bigha3 of land in Village Bamnoli, Delhi notified;for elopmentof Delhi vide Notificationof 4^ November,2004 under the Land AcquisitionAct, 1894 and since the impugnedorder of e Court in these appeals uniformly grants compensationat of about Planned De\ . the Referenc i i the rate of ^17,45,000 per acre with statutory benefits, therefore, with of learned counsel for the parties, who were present at the g, these matters were heard together and are being adjudicatedApon by this commonorder. I

¶2Landi^\.cquisiti6nCollectorwhilerelyinguponthe indicativeprice fixed by Governmentof NCT of Delhi for agriculturalland in Delhi for question,had determinedthe marketValue of the acquired •the consent final hearin the period m land in questionat the aforesaidrate of^15,70,000/-per acre ofleveled c A, whereas for the acquiredland excavatedbeyond one land in Bloc meter, i.e.. Block B land, compensationwas determinedat the rate pf ^14,13,000/- per acre.

¶3Not satisfied with the aforesaid A>vard of Land Acquisition fore the Reference Court, appellants/claimantshad relied nation of 24"' October, 1994 issued by the MunicifJal of Delhi declaring the land in 20 villages includingthe ge to be urbanized. Reliance was also placed upon Collector, be upon Notifi( Corporation instant villa, Notification LA.App.No. 115/2011 & of 16 October, 2000 declaringchange of land use of the acquiredland in questionand thereupon,Delhi DevelopmentAuthority had preparedZonalDevelopmentPlan for DwarkaSub City in Dv^arka, onnectedAppealsof VillageBamnoli LA New Delhi.

¶4While relying upon seven sale instances (Ex.PW-1/7to Ex.PW-1/13)ofthe year 1999,relatingto agriculturalland in VillagePochanpiir purchased a religious society-Radha Swami Satsang, Beas, and certifiedcop^ 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 utility of the land in the ^^illagesofBharthal,Pochanpurand Bamnoliis similarand I had chosen ijiot to rely upon the aforesaid sale instances as the Sale ! instanceofthis ver^'villagewas available. I

¶5In the absence of the evidence of the Vendor/Vendeeof the aforesaidsale instances.Reference Court had discardedthe aforesaid sale instancesjreliedupon by the appellants/claimants,whileadvertingto paragraphno: 29 ofthe Apex Courtdecision^nLai Chandvs. Unionof India and Am., (2009) 15 SCC 769. Before dealing with the sale instances(Ex.|R-Iand Ex.R-II)ofVillageBamnoli,ReferenceCourthad refused to ajjply Delhi DevelopmentAuthority auction rate for the I commercialp^ots or the scheduleof marketrates for Vasant Vihar by placmg imphpit relianceupon the Apex Court decision in Lai Chand (supra) to hold that market price for the developed land cannot be applied whilj determining the market price of the undeveloped agricultural land in Delhi. !

¶6To fortiifytlie aforesaidfinding, ReferenceCourt has extensively quotedthe passagesfrom the Apex Courtdecisionin LaiChand(supra) and thereafter,!had proceededto discardheavilyreliedupon instanceof

4.5 acres of the acquired land by Delhi Development allotment of Authorityto the PowerDepartmentofGovernmentofNCT ofDelhi for .App.No.115/2011& connectedAppealsofVillageBamnoli Page 4 of If; constructionof 715 Mega Watt Gas Based Power Plant/Project,whik holding as under:-

77.1 The allotmentof1.5 hectareoflandfor apremiumof ^297y42 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 questionwithoutpermissionofDBA in view ofSection 12 of t^e Delhi Development Act, 1957 determination of premj-umforallotmentoflandin developmentarea is notan ordinarysale betweenaprudentbuyerandseller.Premium of land in such an allotmentcannot be called the market pricei^ of land which a prospectivebuyer of similar land sittin'gin his armchairwouldbe willingtopay. I I I

¶78Moreover,there is a timegap ofthreeyears 'between date of Notificationunder Section 4 ofLA 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 be taken into consi'^erationfor determiningmarketvalue on the date of NotificationunderSection 4. As per Section24 ofLA Act, the Courtshallnot take into considerationany increaseto t * ^ P ^7_ . I--..-- the vc to wh iU 'Jue ofthe landacquiredlikelyto accruefrom the use 'ch it will beput when required."

¶7On the aspectofthe acquiredlandbeingdeclaredurbanizedand of being in th^ developmentzone, the pertinentfindings returnedby the ReferenceCourtare as under:-

¶94Landofpetitioneris agriculturallandalthoughit is ' in urbanized area and in developmentzone. The land \ continued to be agriculturalland 3ven till issuance of \ Notificationunder Section 4 ofLA Act in the year 2004 would show that in spite of being in capital of country having explosive population, no . residential colony approvedor unapprovedcame up on the land in question and it\wouldnegatepossibility;ofland in questionhaving potentialfor buildingsiteeven in nearfuture. • ' I (

¶95The petitionerhas broughtno evidence, leave aside documentaryevidencethat the acquiredland was suitable LA.App.No. 115/201]&|onnectedAppealsofVillageBamnoli 'Page 5 of IS for putting up buildings, be they residential or, commercial or industrial as the case may be. There is no building activity\startedon the land in questioneven afterpassing of a decade since area was urbanized. " Octpber, 2000 Delhi has not

¶8On the question of potentiahty of the acquired land, Reference Court has taken note of the fact that this acquired land is surrounded on ail four sides by Villages - Bharthal, Bijwasan,Pochanpurand Dhul I . I Siras. Noticing that acquiredland is in the vicinity of Dwarka, where DDA is developingcolonies and therefore, adoption of the minimum rates for agriculturalland fixed by the GovernmentofDelhi by the Land AcquisitionCbllectorwas not justified.Upon consideringthe two sale instancesof 25"^ October,2004 (Ex.R-1)and of20^'' April, 2004 (Ex.R-2) of this ver}f village,ReferenceCourt had discardedthe sale instance (Ex.R-2) as sale considerationof ?9j02,496per acre was found to be depressed and had chosen to rely upon the sale instance (Ex.R-1) depicting sale consideration of 7,45,108 which was found to be comparable.

¶9In the instant appeals, it was vehementlyurged on behalfof the appellantsthat the effectofNotificationof 24^*" October,1994 declaring the acquired Ijands being fit for urbanizationand Notificationof 16^'' regarding the change of land use under the Master Plein of Deen consideredby the ReferenceCourtto appreciatethe true potentialofthe acquiredland. Reliancewas placedupon decisionof the Apex Court in SpecialLandAcquisitionOfficer iSi Am vs. M.K: RafiqSaheb, (12011)7SCC 714, by learnedcounselfor the appellantsto contend that i:i view of the aforesaidNotifications,the acquired land cannotbe treatedas an agriculturalland for determinationof its market value. I • • :

¶10Aforesaidcontentionis noticedfor beingoutrightlyrejectedas the ^A.App,No. 115/201]& connectedAppealsofVillageBarrinoli acquired lands may not to be termed as agricultural land but they wei;e certajinlyundeveloped.Government'sminimumrates for the agricultural e to Delhi have been rightly discarded by the Preference iance placed upon M::K. Rafiq Saheb (supra), is clearly the Reference Court has deterinined the market value of the acquired land v^hilerelying upon a sale exemplar of this yqyj village.

¶11There is no question of discarding the aforesaid NotificEitions. In fact, inspite of the aforesaid Notifications no development activity was there on the acquired lands as no permission was sought by the ov/ners of the acquiredlands under Delhi DevelopmentAct and therefore, it caii be safely concludedthat the acquiredlands were undevelopedand the same could not be comparedwith developedlands for determiningthe marketvalue of the acquiredland. Thus, relianceplaced by appellant's counselupon UdhoDass vs. StateofHaryana & Ors., 2010 (9) SCALE I 41 is of no avail. |

¶12Rejectic|n of auction rates of Delhi DevelopmentAuthority, in Sector 20 ancj 22 of Dwarka, by the Reference Court, is assailed b)^ ' ' i learnedcounselfor the appellantsby contendingthatthe acquiredland is I ' fully compara.ble with the aforesaid land and is in proximity and therefore,the marketvalueofthe acquiredland oughtto have been fixed with referencetoi the auctionrates ofthe Delhi DevelopmentAuthority. ReferenpeCourth^s not only reliedupon the decisionofApex Courtin Lai Chand vs.j Union ofIndia and Anr., (2009) 15 SCC 769 but has extensivelyqrjoted relevant passages therefrpm to hold that the sale considerationof the developedlands cannotbe appliedto the acquired lands which are undisputedlyundeveloped. At the hearing in these ( • • I appeals, learned counsel for the appellant could not distinguish the! decisionof the Apex Courtin Lai Chand(supra),whose ratio squarely land applicab Court. So, re misplaced, as A.App.No. 115/2011& connectedAppealsofVillageBamncli• apphes to the instantcases. Therefore,,!find that the ReferenceCourt has rightlyreilisedto applyDelhiDevelopmentAuthorityauctionrates for determiningthe marketvalueofthe acquiredland. i

¶13^Whilereiteratingthe well settledprincipleoflawthatcomparable sale mstances, are the best piece of evidenceto be consideredby the xirposeof determiningthe compensation,Apex Court in 3ion m RadhaMudaliyar Vs. SpecialTahsildar(Land Acquisition T^mil Nadu Housing Board) (2010) 13 SCC 384 has observedas un^er:- I •13. Comparablesalesinstancesare thesafestmethodfor ' laiddm^ in ShajiKuriakosev. 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 timeproximateto the date ofissuanceof underSection4oftheAct; (3) the landcovered u "! """''y °fthe\,cguiredland; (4) the landcov^edby thesalemust be similarto the acquired landand(5) sizeoftheplotofthe landcoveredby tL sale be comparableto theacquired land, ne sales instances s ouldpreferablybe closestto the date ofnotificationas hen aloneit wouldsatisfythe touchstoneofthe-principles . contemplatedunder Section 23 of the Act, as held in KanwarS^inghvs. UnionofIndia."

¶14Fixationjftlie marketvalue oftlie acquiredland on the basis of the sale instances(Ex.PW-1/7to Ex.PW-I/I4)ofthe adjoiningvillages,:: as sought by the appellantsstands rightly rejected by the Reference Courtas tlie sale instancesofthis very villageare available.When it is i so. then there is|no need to look for the sale instancesofthe adjoining ! villages. j ''

¶15Offthe afojresaidreasoning,adoptionoftheL&DOratesto fix the ' marketvalueofthe acquiredlandssoughtby the appellantsis outrightly, rejected. Appellants'counsel had rehed upon decision of the Apex .^

1.A.APP.No. ,,5/201,&o"m.4,edAppealsofVillageBampCi ' Court for the its recent deci Court in Kiran Tandon vs. Allahabad Development Authority, (2004) 10 see 745 and in Valliyammal and Anr vs. Special Tehsildar (Land Acquisition) and Anr., AIR 2011 SC 2937 to assert that deduction of 40% towards development charges was improper and where large area, _ _ I not fally developed, is acquired, normally, deduction of about 33% is permissible. The need to look for sale instances in thej vicinity is obviatedin visw 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-1/14)would arise only when sale instancei(Ex.R-1) is found to be not comparable. Therefore, referenceto the aforesaiddecisionsby learnedcounselfor the appellants is of no consequence.

¶16During the course ofhearing, learned counsel for the appellants had-stronglyrelied upon the instanceof allotmentof 14.5 hectares (37 acres approximately)by Delhi DevelopmentAuthority to the Powe]* ri Departmentof Delhi Governmenton leaseholdbasis at a considercition of ^297.42 Ices per acre with 2.5%o annual ground rent to claim enhancementcjf compensationat the rate of ^^40 lacsper acre over and abovethe marketvalue fixed by the ReferenceCourtas the allotmentof I the aforesaidland was out ofthe acquiredland. With much vehemence I ' It was assertedby learned counsel for the appellantsthat the aforesaid allotment is plearly comparable and therefore,.on its basis the|^ compensationought to be enhancedwhile treatingthe acquiredland to, be at par wit^ the aforesaid land allotted to Power Department of| GovernmentofjDelhi. I

¶17To meetltheaforesaidstandof the appellants,it was pointedout| by learnedsenjorcounsel for the Respondentsthat aforesaidallotmenti by Delhi DevelopmentAuthorityto Rower Departmentof Government' I (.A.App.No. n5/2011 &conjiectedAppealsofVillageBamnoli of Delhi was made in November, 2007 and the possession of the aforesaidlandwas handedoverto the PowerDepartmentofGovernment ofDelhi in Fejbniary,2008 and the acquisitionofthe land in questionis of November, 2004 and during the, interveningperiod land rates had steadilyincreasedand therefore,aforesaidallotmentcarmotbe made the basis to determine the market value of the acquired land as the I mtervemnggap is of three years. |

¶18The factorsto be consideredto determinethe marketvalueofthe acquiredlandsjas reiteratedby the Apex Courtin GeneralManager,Oil andNaturalClas CorporationLtd vs. RameshbhaiJivanbhaiPateland Am, (2008) U' SCC 745, are as under:- . : J3. Pi^imarily, the increase in land prices depends on fourfacxors: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,Iincrease in prices would be slow, steady and crvn^n 7 _7 gradual, hand, in withoutany suddenspurtsorjumps. On the other urbanor semi-urbanareas, wherethe development isfaster, wherethe demandfor landis highandwherethere IS constn^ctionactivityall around, the escalationin market price is Qt a much higherrate, as comparedto ruralareas. In somepocketsin big cities, due to rapiddevelopmentand high demand for land, the escalations in prices have touched even 30% to 50% or more per year, during the nineties.

¶14Oj the other extreme, in remote,rural areas where there wa^ no chance ofany developmentand hardly any buyers, thepricesstagnatedforyearsor rose fnarginallyat a nominalrate of1<% or 2% per annum. There is thus a significamdifferencein increasesin marketvalue oflands in urban/,semi-urbanareasandincreasesin marketvalueof landsmthe ruralareas. Therefore,ifthe increasein market value in wban/semi-urbanareas is about10% to 15% per annum, tl^e correspondingincreasesin ruralareaswouldat LA,App.No. 115/2011&conjiectedAppealsofVillageBamnoli Page 10 of IS best be only around half of it, that is about 5% to 7.5%per annum. This rule ofthumb refers to the general trend in the nineties,,to be adopted in the absence of clear and specific evidence 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 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 contemporaneous sale transactions or acquisitions of comparable lands in the neighbourhood. Thesaid method is reasonably safe where the relied-on sale transactions/ acquisitionsprecede the subjectacquisitionby only a few years, that is uptofour tofiveyears. Beyondthat it may be unsafe, even ifitrelatesto 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 lan4 acquired in 1992, adopting the annual increase methodwith referenceto a sale or acquisitionin 1970 or lay have many pitfalls. This is because, over the 1980 m course ofyears, the "rate" ofannual increase may itself drastic change apart from the likelihood of 7ce of varyingperiods-of stagnation in prices or 'spurts in prices affecting the very standard of undergo occurre, sudden increase.

¶19Being mindful of the ratio of the decisionof the Apex Court in ONGC^(supra), I find that the instance of institutional allotment (Ex.PW13/l)of the year 2007 heavily relied upon by the appellants wouldnot be usefulguideto determinethe marketvalue ofthe land in question,as tlje said allotmentwas made afteraperiodof three years from the date ofacquisitionofthe land in question.It is so said because the sale exemplarofthe relevantperiodofthisveryvillagein questionis I LA.App.No. 115/2011& connectedAppealsofVillageBamnoli Page 1] of 15

¶5available. Therefore, the aforesaid instance of allotment of land to tKe Power Department of Government of Delhi has been rightly rejected by i I . ' i' Court. ' i : j lat is required to be considered is whether the sale instance d upon by the Reference Court is a comparable instance c the Reference

¶20Noww! , (Ex.R-1) relie not. Undisput2dly,sale instance(Ex.R-1)is of this very villageand is df 4 whereas the land in question was acquired vidp October, Notification of November, 2004. Evidently, aforesaid sale instance .1^-1) is not only relevantbut is comparableas it has not been shown by th^ appelkntsas to what are the distinguishingfeatureswhich would i ]icableto determinethe marketvalueofthe acquiredlands. ReferenceCourtthat when the sale instance(Ex.R-1)was Dbjectionwas raisedby the claimantsand as per section51- [cquisition Act, 1894, a certified copy of a registered acceptable in evidence and since this document has been j .idence by the Respondents,the same can be read against ;unimpeachable. | I 21However, to meet the aforesaidfinding.ofthe ReferenceCourt, it was submittedby learnedcounselfor the appellantsthat opportunityto make it inapp Finding of the exhibited no c A of Land / document is tendered in e\ them, remains lead, rebuttal e ,or bona fide, a videnceto showthat sale instance(Ex.R-1)is not reliabl Qapplication to lead rebuttal evidence was filed before the ReferenceCourt whichwas illegallyrejected^videorderof25"' August 2010 and therefore, this matter needs to be remanded back to the • i • I Reference Court to enable the appellantsto lead rebuttal evidence to demolishaforesaidsaleinstance(Ex.R-1). ' | ; • j

¶22Firstof all, appellantsoughtto haye objectedto the exhibitiono 'aforesaidsale nstance(Ex.R-1).Havingnot done so, appellantshave to face the legal consequences. Secondly, even if application of the LA.App.No. 115/2,011& connectedAppealsofVillageBamnoli : appellantsfor leading rebuttal evidencewas rejectedby the Reference Court, nothi: additional e the sale ins i:ig had stoppedthem from movingan applicationfor leading adence in the appeal to lead evidencein order to demolish .ance (Ex.R-1). Not only this, even during the course;of hearipg,nothingwas urgedto showas-tohow the saleinstance(Ex.R-1) is not genuine/reliableor comparable. ' light of the evidence on record, I am of the considered he ReferenceCourthas rightlyreliedupon the sale instance (Ex.R-1)to aeterminethe marketvalueofthe acquiredlands.Findingno merit mthe pstantappeals of claimantsand cross-objectionby one of them, the same are dismissedwhile leavingthe partiesto beartheirown costs. as appeals of the Respondentsare concerned,I find no ihem, becausethe determinationofthe marketvalue ofthe by the ReferenceCourthas been done whilerelyingupon tlie sale instance (Ex.R-1) produced by the Respondentsthemselves. Regardingdojngawayofthe classificationofthe acquiredland into 'A' block and 'B| Block by the ReferenceCourt is concerned,Ifind that this classificajionhasareasonablebasis. That is to say, land witli top soil andthe lajidwithouttop soilcannotbe putatparas themarketvalue ofthe landwifcouttop soil is boundto be lesserthanfte marketvalueof the landwith t]3p soil. !

¶25Endorsingthe pricedifferentiationbetween'A' categoryland and 'B' category|and, my esteemed brother Pradeep Nandrajog,J., in a recentdecisiorjin LA.App.No.266/2008,titledas JaiSingh\&Ors. vs'. UnionofIndia&Ors., renderedon 23'^August2011,whilerelyingon the deqision of the DivisionBench of this court in GajrujSingh vs Unionoflndia^2006(VI)AD Delhi13, has heldas under-

¶23In the opinion that

¶24So far substance in acquired land -A.App,No. ]15/201] & connectedAppealsofVillageBamnoH

¶56Ip. GajrajSingh'scase (supra), theprice differential worked out was ^25,000/- per acre. I have noted hereinabove that the acquisition in Gajraj Singh's case pertained to the date 15.11.1996.In Gajraj Singh's case the pricefor Category 'A ' landdeterminedwas ^9,76,121/-per acre and for Category 'B' land the price determinedwas ^9,51,121/-per acre and the p'rice differentialcomes to about 2.5% with reference to the price of Category 'A' land. .I

¶57I thus hold that Gajraj Singh's case should be my guiding star for price differential in ihe instant cases as well and thus I hold that whereverCategory,A', Category B and Category 'C have to be differentiatedonprice, the i differential should be 2.5%."

¶26Consequentially,the findingofthe ReferenceCourtregardingthe A category^nd 'B' categorylandbeingsimilarlysituatedhavingsame potentialit}'and becausethey are acquiredfor the same publicpurjDose, cannotbe sustainedin the lightofthe aforesaidobservations.However ' the claim of|the Union of India, to seek adoption of the minimum indicative-prijeof agriculturalland in Delhi while forgettingthat the Appellant-l^OI itselfhas reliedupon the sale instance(Ex.R-1),merits rejection. | I I

¶27In viewjofthe,afore-goingnarration,Ifindthatno substancein the appeals filed py claimantsas well as in cross objectionof one of the claimantsand the same are dismissed. So far as the appeals filed by Union ofIndi^ are concerned,the same are partlyallowedto the extent tJiat the compensationawarded by the Refsrence Court for the 'B' category of lands (as noticed in the Award of the Land Acquisition Collector)is reducedfrom^17,45,000peracreto 7,01,375/-acre':

¶28Beforepartingthis order,I would like to bring on recordthat the brevity of th^s order is occasioned by the fact that the impugned judgment is well consideredon facts and the law. Therefbre,I have i ' ' •A.App. No. 115/20]1&cojinectedAppealsofVillageBamnoli Page 14 purposefullypot adverted torthe entire evidence,on record and the relevant evidence, i.e. of the sale exemplars has been taken into I considerationj^yme in this order.

¶29The abpve captionedappeals and cross-objectionare disposedof with direction;to the Registryto remitthe con^pensationamount,ifany, depositedby cjitherside with;theRegistrarGeneralofthis Court,to the concerned Reference Court. February 01, 2012 pkb/rs ; NIL GAUR) JUDGE ch iA ^ C T'X fApp.No. >15/2011&connectedAppeal,ofVillageBamnoli

* % + % IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI LA.APP. 194/2011 UNION OF INDIA Through: versus Reserved on: January 12. 2012 Pronounced on: February 01. 2012 Appellant Mr.SanjayPoddar,SeniorAdvocatewithMr.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.Sethiand Mr.KunalSharma,Advocates for DDA in (R-74-77 & 80) Mr.Mohinder Singh Charak, Advocate (R-63 and 112) YUDHVEER SINGH & ANR Respondent Through: ]VIr.B.S.Maan,^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 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