Union of India v. Kartar Singh & Anr

ORDER

23.02.2012

¶1Learned counsel for the appellant/UOIstates that fate of this appeal would be governed by LA.APP No.115/2011 'Jai Prakash Vs. UnionofIndia&Another', renderedon l" February,2G12.

¶2In the light of aforesaid,this appeal is disposedof in terms of decisionin LA APP No.115/2011 'JaiPrakash Vs. Union ofIndia & Another',renderedon 1''February,2012 with no ordersas to costs. FEBRUARY 23,2012 b NIL GAUR, J 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. ,>i. V % H-IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI ' Reserved on: January 12, 2011 Pronounced on: February 01, 2012 LA.APP. 115/2011(VILLAGE BAMNOLI) ••• . JAI PRAKA SH ..... Appellant Through: Mr.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.RoutandMr.B.K.Routray,Advocates (inR-74 andforrespondenton R-79) versus NDIA &ANR. ..... Respondents Through: Mr.SanjayPoddar, SeniorAdvocatewith Mr.SanjayPathalc,Ms.Navlin Swain, Ms.K.K.Kiranand Mr.S.N.jPandey,Advocates forUOI Mr. Yeeshu Jain, Advocate for UOI (R-1 to 5, 18-37, 47, 49, 50-52, 55-73, 75-81, 113-123 Mr.ArunBirbal,Mr.BanlceyBihariSharma, Ms.Amita Singh, Mr.S.K.Sethi and Mr.Kunal Sharma,Advocatesfor DDA in (R-74-77& 80) Mr.MohinderSinghCharak,Advocate(R-63 and 112) ' UNION 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. 20/201.1 LA.APP. 23/2011 LA.APP. 91/2011 LA.APP. 94/2011 LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. I.A.APP. LA.App.No. 115/2011 & connectedAppealsof VillageBamnoli 18/2011 21/2011 24/2011 92/2011 95/2011 •. 1 ''K'Ji'5 ' ' '• • • • ,.,1. • I.I'' • SIS mmism SiS&iftfi i'' slfSM;S F V. - 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. 5/2011 7/2011 1/2011 4/2011 8/2011 186/2011 192/2011 204/2011 207/2011 210/2011 3/2011 5/2011 29B/2011 ^/2011 7/2011 3/2011 313/2011 316/2011 319/2011 325/2011 355/2011 358/2011 364/2011 492/2011 49^/2011 499/2011 503/2011 50d/2011 513/2011 196/ 280/ 283/ /2011 ^2011 '2011 2011 2011 2011 287/2011 LA.APP. LA.APP. LA..4PP. 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. 133/201.1' 168/2011 172/2011 175/2011 179/2011 187/2011 193/2011 205/2011 208/2011 2U/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.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 (Cross-objection) (Relatmgto NotificationNo.9(50)/2004/L&B/LA/13211of 04.11.2004 issuedunderSection4ofthe LandAcqiiisitionAct, 1894 & AwardNo 1/2007-2008of06.08.2008,VillageBamnoli,NewDelhi) l.A.App.No. 115/2011& connectedAppealsofVillageBamnoli % CORAM: HON'BLE. MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR O RB E R

01.02.2012

¶1Abo-vecaptionedappealsand cross-objectionsrelateto acquisition 00 bighas of land in Village Bamnoli, Delhi notified for velopmentofDelhi vide Notificationof 4^'' November,2004 and AcquisitionAct, 1894 and since the impugnedorder of •Q Court in these appeals uniformlygrants compensationat 7,45,000per 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 fixed by GovernmentofNCT ofDelhi for agriculturalland in Delhi for the periodhi question,had determinedthe marketvalue ofthe acquired land in questionat the aforesaidrate of 5,70,000/-per acre ofleveled land in Blo(;k A, whereas for the acquiredland excavatedbeyond one ]Block B land, compensationwas determinedat the rate of of about 2: Planned De under the L the Referen . the rate of the consent final hearii adjudicated

¶2Land meter, i.e., ^14,13,000/-per acre.

¶3Not satisfied with the aforesaid Award of Land Acquisition Collector, bijfore the Reference Court, appellants/claimantshad relied , upon Notifi ,Corporation instant villa Notification :ation of 24"' October, 1994 issued by the Municipal of Delhi declaring the land in 20 villages including the ge to be urbanized. ReHance was also placed upon of 16"^ October, 2000 declaringchange of land use of the f cquired land in questionand thereupon,Delhi DevelopmentAuthority had preparedZonalDevelopmentPlan for DwarkaSub City in Dwarka, LA.App.No. 115/2011& connectedAppealsofVillageBamnoli New Delhi

¶4While relying upon seven sale instances(Ex.PW-i/7to Ex.PW- •• •: - .1 l/13).ofthe year 1999,relatingto agriculturallandin VillagePochanpur purchased by a religious society-Radha Swami 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 concludedthat there was no evidenceto the effectthat location,potentialand utility of the land in the VillagesofBharthal,Pochanpurand Bamnohis similarand had chosen not to rely upon the aforesaid sale' instances as the Sale instanceofthis veryvillagewas available. 5, In the absence of the evidence of the Vendor/Vendeeof the aforesaid sale instances,Reference Court had discardedthe aforesaid sale instancesreheduponby the appellants/claimants,whileadvertingto paragraphno: 29 ofthe Apex Courtdecisionin Lai Chandvs. Unionof India and i instances (E ter., (2009) 15 see 769. Before dealing with the sale <.R-I and Ex.R-lI)ofVillageBamnoli,Referenceeourthad commercial placing imp refused to [ipply Delhi DevelopmentAuthority auction rate for the plots or the scheduleof market rates for Vasant Viliar 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.

¶6To fordfythe aforesaidfinding,ReferenceCourthas extensively quotedthe passagesfrom the ApexCourtdecision\n Lai Chand(supra) r, had proceededto discardheavilyreliedupon instanceof

14.5 acres of the acquired land by Delhi Development :he PowerDepartmentofGovernmentofNCT ofDelhi for and thereafte allotment of Authority to LA.App.No.115/2011 &• connectedAppealsofVillageBamnoli constmctio holding as under:- "77. ^297 Buye devel quest 1of 715 Mega Wg,tt Gas Based Power Plant^roject,while 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 ion withoutpermissionofDDA in view ofSection 12 of the. Delhi Development Act, 1957 determination of prem'.umforallotmentoflandin developmentai^ea is notan ordinarysale betweenaprudentbuyerandseller.Premium of la price 2d in such an allotmentcannot be called the market 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 •' ^ .

¶75date

04.11 considerationfor determiningmarketvalue on the date of NotificationunderSection 4. As per Section24 ofLA Act, the Courtshallnot take into considerationany increaseto Section 4 of LA Act cannot be taken into lue ofthe landacquiredlikelyto accruefrom the use ch it willbeput when required." the va to whi

¶7On the being in the Reference C "94. aspectof the acquiredlandbeingdeclaredurbanizedandof developmentzone, the pertinentfindings returned by the Durt are as under Landofpetitioneris agriculturalland althoughit is in urbanized 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, approvedor unapprovedcame up on. the land,in question and it wouldnegatepossibilityofland in questionhaving potentialfor buildingsiteeven in nearfuture.

¶95The petitioner has broughtno evidence, leaVe aside documentaryevidencethat the acquired land was suitable LA.App. No. 115/201] & connectedAppealsofVillageBamnoli Pages of 15 for pt tting up buildings, be they residentialor 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 rates for agri Acquisition instances of s question of potentialityof tlie acquired land, Reference can note of the fact that this acquired land is sun"oundedon s by Villages-Bharthal, Bijwasan, Pochanpur,and Dhul Siras. Noticingthat acquiredland is in the vicinityof Dwarka, where DDA IS developingcolonies and. therefore, adoption of the minimum culturalland fixedby the GovernmentofDelhi by the Land ollectorwas not justified.Upon consideringthe two sale 25'" October,2004 (Ex.R-1)and of 20"" April,12004 (Ex.R-2) of this very village,ReferenceCourthad discardedthe sale instance (Ex.R-2) as sale considerationof ?9,02,496per acre was^found to be depressed ard had chosen to rely upon the sale instance (Ex.R-1) depicting sale considerationof ?17,45,10S which was foutid to be comparable. ~

¶9In the instantappeals, it was vehementlyurged on behalfof the appellants th the acquired October, 200( Delhi has not . true potential ..the Apex Col Rqfiq Saheb, contend that i cannot be trea value.

¶10Aforesaidcontentionis noticedfor beingoutrightlyreject^as tlie t the effectofNotificationof24''' October, 1994 declaring lands being fit for urbanizationand Notificationof 16"' regardingthe changeofland use underthe MasterPlan of been consideredby the ReferenceCourtto appreciatethe ofthe acquiredland. Reliancewas placedupon decisionof rt in SpecialLandAcquisitionOfficer& Am vs, MJC

(2011)7see 714, by learnedcounselfor the appellantsto n view of the aforesaid.Notifications,the acquired land ted as an agriculturalland for determinationofits market LA.App. No. 115/201] & connectedAppealsof VillageBarrinoli acquiredlaiids may not to be termed as agriculturalland but they v/ere certainlyundeveloped.Government'sminimumrates for the agricultural land applicableto Delhi have been rightly,discardedby the.Reference Court. So, relianceplaced upon M.K. Rafiq Saheb (supra), is clearly misplaced,as the ReferenceCourt has determinedthe marketvalue,of the acquiredlandwhilerelyinguponasaleexemplarofthis veryvillage. is no jquestionof discardingthe aforesaidNotifications.In ofthe aforesaidNotificationsno developmentactivitywas acquiredlands as no permissionwas soughtby the owners id lands underDelhiDevelopmentAct and therefore,it can be safely cojicludedthat the acquiredlands were undevelopedand the same could not be comparedwith developedlands for determiningthe of the acquiredland. Thus, relianceplaced by appellant's UdhoDass vs. StateofHaryana&Ors., 2010 (9) SCALE ail.

¶11There fact, inspite there on the of the acquir market value counsel upon 41 is of no a\

12.. Rejection 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 folly comparable with the aforesaid land and is,in proximity and therefore,the marketvalueofthe acquiredlandoughtto have been fixed with referenceto the auctionrates ofthe DelhiDevelopmentAuthority. ReferenceCoart has not onlyrelied;upon the decisionofApex,Court in •Lai Chand vi. Union ofIndia andAnn, (2;009) 15 SCC 769 but has extensivelyquoted relevant passages therefrom to hold that the sale considerationof the developedlands,cannot be appliedto the acquired lands which lire undisputedlyundeveloped.,At the hearing in these p^peals, learned counsel for the appellant pould not distinguish the decisionof the; Apex Courtin Lai Chand{suprdi),whose ratio squarely LA.App, No. 115/2011 & co inectedAppealsofVillageBamnbli applies to the instantcases. Therefore,I find that the ReferenceCourt has rightlyrefusedto applyDelhi.DevelopmentAuthorityauctionrates for determiningthe marketvalueofthe acquiredland.

¶13Whilereiteratingthe well settledprincipleoflaw that comparable sale instances,are the best piece of evidenceto he consideredby the Court for th(! purposeof determiningthe compensation.Apex Courtin vision in RadhaMudaliyar Vs. SpecialTahsildar(Land Tamil Nadu Housing Board) (2010) 13 SCC 384 has its recent de Acquisition . observed as i nder:- "13. 'rO'nparablesalesinstances'arethesafestmethodfor deterrrimingthe marketvalve'of:the acquiredland and as laid down mShajiKuriakosev..Indian Oil Corpn Ltd it shouldsatisfy thefactors, inter alia (I) the sale must he genuine^transaction;(2) the sale deed must have been executed^at the time proximateto the date ofissuanceof notificationunderSection4oftheAct; (3) the landcovered by the sale must be in the vicinityofthe acquiredland- (4) the landcoveredby thesalemustbe similarto the acquired landan^ (5) sizeoftheplotofthe landcoveredby the sale be comp^arableto theacquired land The sales instances shouldpreferablybe closestto the date ofnotificationas 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 saleinstances(Ex.PW-1/7to Ex.PW-l/Mjofthe adjoiningvillages, as sought by the appellantsstands rightly rejected by the Reference Court as the sale instancesofthis very villageare available.When it is so, then there is no need to look for the sale instancesofthe adjoining villages.

¶15Onthe a:bresaidreasoning,adoptionofthe L&DOratesto fix the marketvalueol the acquiredlands soughtby the appellantsis outrightly rejected. Appellants' counsel had relied upon decision of the Apex t.A.App.No. 115/2011&comiectedAppealsofVillageBamnoli Pagegof15 \ . 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% toward;developmentchargeswas improperand where large area, not fully de permissible. obviated in ^ are available the sale inst sale instanc reference to ; 'eloped, is acquired, normally, deduction of about 33% is The need to look for sale instances in the vicinity is dew ofthe fact that the sale instancesofthe instantvillage and so the requirementofconsideringthe applicabilityof 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 cons jquence.

¶16During had strongly acres approx of ^297.42 enhancement above the ma the aforesaid the course of hearing, learnedcounsel for the appellants relied upon the instanceof allotmentof 14.5 hectares(37 imately) by Delhi DevelopmentAuthority to the Power Departmentof Delhi Governmenton leaseholdbasis at a consideration lacs per acre with 2,5% annual ground rent to claim ofcompensationat the rate of^40 lacsper acre over and rketvalue fixed by the ReferenceCourtas the allotmentof land was out ofthe acquiredland. With much vehemience, It was assertedby learnedcounsel for the appellantsthat the aforesaid allomient 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 Governmentof Delhi. • . ,

¶17To meet the aforesaidstand of the appellants,'itwas pointedout by learned seiior counsel for the Respondentsthat aforesaidallotment by Delhi DevelopmentAuthorityto Power Departmentof Government LA.App.No. 115/201] & cc nnectedAppealsofVillageBamnoli of Delhi was made in November, 2007 and the possession of the afoiesaidlardwas handedoverto the PowerDepartmentofGovernment ofDelhi in February,2008 and the acquisitionofthe land in questionis of November, 2004 and during tKe interveningperiod land rates had steadilyincreasedand therefore,aforesaidallotmentcannotbe made the basis to de-;ermine the market value of the acquired land as the intervening§;ap is ofthreeyears.

¶18The fa ctors to be considered to determine the marke ; value of the acquiredlands as reiteratedby the Apex Courtin GeneralManager,Oil and Natural Anr, (2008)

¶12Primarily, the increase in land prices depends on fourfactors:situationofthe land, natureofdevelopnientin 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 gradua^, withoutany suddenspurtsorjumps. On the other hand, in urbanorsemi-urbanareas, where the development ISfaster, wherethe demandfor landis highandwherethere IS constructionactivityall around, theescalation in market price is at a much higherrate, as comparedto ruralareas. 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 there ^^as no chance ofany developmentand hardly any buyers,'^hepricesstagnatedforyearsor rose marginallyat a_ nominal rate of 1% or 2% per annum. There is thus' a significantdifferencein increasesin marketvalue oflands in urbaj^/semi-urbanareasandincreasesin marketvalueof lands the ruralareas. Therefore,ifthe increasein market value in^ urban/semi-urbanareas is about10% to 15%per annum, the correspondingincreasesin ruralareaswouldat Gas CorporationLtdvs. RameshbhaiJivanbhaiPateland 4 see 745, are as under:- LA.ApR.No.115/2011&connectedAppealsofVillageBamnoli best bz only around halfof it-, that is about 5% to 7.15%per annum. This rule ofthumb refersto tPie generaltrendin 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 then the increaseto be appliedwoulddependupon 'ne. prices the sai

¶15Normally, recourse is taken to the mode of determining the market value by providing appropriate escalationover theprovedmarketvalue of nearbylands in previous years . (as evidenced by sale transactions or itions), where there is no ^oraneous sale transactions acquis contemp reason acquis years, evidence of any ' or acquisitions of comparable lands in the neighbourhood. Thesaid'method is ably safe where the relied-on sale transactions/ itionsprecede the subjectacquisitionby only a few that is uptofour tofiveyears. Beyondthat it may be unsafe, even ifitrelatesto a neighbouringland. What may be a reliablestandardif the gap is only afew years, may become unsafe and unreliablestandardwhere the gap is larger.For example,for determiningthe marketvalue ofa land acquired in 1992, adopting ihe -annual increase methodwithreferenceto a sale or acquisitionin 1970 or 1980 may have many pitfalls. This is because, over the course ofyears, the ''rate" pf annual increase may itself undergo drastic change apart from the likelihood of occurrenceof varyingperiods of stagnation in prices or sudden spurts in prices affecting t?ie very standard of increase. " \ - • • " '

¶19Being :iiindfulof the.ratio of the decisionof tlie Apex Court in ONGC (supra), I find that the instance of institutional allotment (Ex.PW13/l)|ofthe year 2007 heavily rehed upon by the appellants wouldnot be ja usefulguideto determinethe marketvalue ofthe land in question, as t from the date he said allotmentwas made after a period of three years ofacquisitionpfthe land in question.It is so said because the sale exemplaroffhe relevantperiodofthisveryvillagein questionis LA.App.No. 115/2011& connectedAppealsofVillageBamnoli available. TTherefore,the aforesaidinstance of allotmentof land to the PowerDepartmentofGovernmentofDelhihas been rightlyrejectedby the Reference Court. ~ •20. Now whatis requiredto be.consideredis whetherthe sale instance (Ex.R-1)reliedupon by the ReferenceCourtis a comparableinstanceor not. Undispijitedly,sale instance(Ex.R-1)is ofthis veryvillageand is of October, 2004 whereas the land in question-was acquired vide Notification!,ofNovember, 2004. Evidently, aforekid sale instance (Bx.R-1)is tjot onlyrelevantbut is comparableas it has not been shown by the appellantsas to what are the distinguishingfeatureswhich would make it inapplicableto determinethe marketvalueofthe acquiredlands. FindingoftlieReferenceCourtthat'whenthe sale instance(Ex.R-1)was exhibitedno iobjectionwas raisedby the claimantsand as per section51-A of Land Requisition Act, 1894, a certified copy of a registered documentis |acceptablein evidenceand since this documenthas been tenderedmeyidenceby the Respondents,the same can be read against them,remainsunimpeachable.

¶21However,to meetthe aforesaidfindingofthe Reference'Court, it was submittedby learnedcounselfor the appellantsthat opportunityto lead rebuttalevidenceto show that sale instance(Exk-l)is not reliable or bonafide, an applicationto leadrebuttalevidencewas filed beforethe ReferenceCourtwhich was illegallyrejectedvide orderof25^' August, 2010 and therefore, this matter needs to be remanded back to the Reference Conrt to enable the appellantsto, lead rebuttal evidence to demolishaforesaidsaleinstance(Ex.R-1). '

¶22j Firstoflall,appellantsoughtto have ol^ectedto the exhibitionof aforesaidsaleinstance(Ex.R-1).Havingnot done so, appellantshave to face the lega^ consequences. Secondly, even if application of the LA.App.No. 115/2011&connectedAppealsofVillageBamnoli ' : ^ : y\ appellantsfor leadingrebuttal evidencewas rejectedby the Reference Court,nothmghad 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.E:-l) is not genuine/rehableor 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 dismissedwhileleavingthe partiesto l^eartheirown costs. ' • 24. So far as appeals of the Respondentsare concerned,I fmd no substancein;them, becausethe determinationofthe marketvalue ofthe i acquiredlandby the ReferenceCourthas been donewhilerelyingupon •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 fmd 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 land withtop soil.

¶25Endorsingthe pricedifferentiationbetween'A'.^^ategoryland and .'B' category land, my esteemed brother Pradeep Nandrajog, J., in a recentdecisionin LA.App.No.266/2008,titledas JaiSingh &Ors, vs. Union ofIndia&Ors., renderedon 23'^ August2011, whilerelyingon the decision of the DivisionBench of this court in GaJmJ Singh ra. UnionofIndia, 2006 (VI) AD Delhi 13, has held as under:- ' LA.App.No. 115/2011&connectedAppealsofVillageBamnoli-; / Page 13 of15 ' m "56. In GajrajSingh'scase (supra), thepricedifferential worked out was t25,000/- per acre. I have noted hereiriabovethat the acquisition in Gajraj Singh's case pertainedto the date 15.11.1996.In GajrajSingh'scase the • pricefor Category 'A 'landdeterminedwas ^9,76,121/-per acre andfor Category 'B' land the price determinedM>as 9,51,121/-per acre and the price differentialcomes to about 2.5% with reference to the price of Category 'A ' land.

¶57I thus holfl that Gajraj Singh's case should be my guidingstarfor price differentialin the instant cases as well ana thusI holdthat whereverCategory 'A Category) B andCategoryC have to be differentiatedonprice, the differential shouldbe2.5%."

¶26Consequentially,the findingofthe ReferenceCourtregardingthe 'A' categoiyand 'B' categorylandbeingsimilarlysituatedhavingsame potentialityand becausethey are acquiredfor the same publicpurpose, • be sustain^in the lightof,the a&reSaidobsWions.However! the claim of the Union of India, to seek adoption of the minimum • indicativeprice of agriculturalland in Delhi while forgettingthat the Appellant-UOI itselfhas relieduponthe sale instance(Ex.R-1),merits rejection.

¶27In Viewoftlieafore-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 tlie Reference Court for the 'B' category oflands (as noticed in the Award of the Land Acquisition Collector)is reducedfi-om?17,45,000^.;-ac;,Mo?17,01,375A;,e,

¶28^Beforepartingthis order,Iwouldliketo bringon recordthat the brevity of tins order is occasioned by the fact that the impugned judgment is w?ll consideredon facts and the law. Therefore,I have M.App,^0. 115/20]1&connectedAppealsofVillageBamnoli , ^ purposefiillynot adverted to the entire evidence on record and the relevant evidence, i.e. of the sil? .^exemplars has been taken into consideration by me in this order.

¶29The above captionedappealsand cross-objectionare disposedof with directionto the Registiyto remitthe compensationamount,ifanj;, depositedby eitherside with the RegistrarGeneralofthis Court,to th[ concerned Reference Court. February 01,-2012 pkb/rs • -A.App.No,115/2011&connectedAppealsofVillageBamnoli NIL GAUJR) JUDGE h ^ tin n ^

\ $-5 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + LA.APP. 185/2011 UNIONOF INDIA Appellant Through Mr. Yeeshu Jain, Advocate versus KARTARSINGH&ANR Respondent Through Mr. S. K. Sethi, Advocate for DDA/Respondent No.2 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR %