Union of India v. Lakhi Ram & 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 disposed of in terms of LA APP No. 115/2011 'Jai Prakash Vs. Union of India & Another', renderedon 1®' February,2012 withno ordersas to costs [L^AtTRrJ FEBRUARY 23, 2012 b 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. S '*>f i ' >1= % IN THE HIQH COURT ;OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on: Janiian' 12, 201 / Pronounced on: February 01. 2012 LA.APP;115/2011(VdJlAGEBAMNOL!) JAI PRAKASH Through: Appellant Mij.B.S.Maan,Mr.Amit Maan, Mr.R.S.Verrna, MijJaiPrakash,Ms.SmitaMaan andMr.Jitin Tewathia,Advocaiss(R-14-16,22, 30, 34, 38-45,51-53) Mr|.MohinderSinghCharak,Advocatefor : apij)ellantin R-112 and respondentin R-63 ; Mr|.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,Advocate's (in:R-74and for respondenton R-79) versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR.. Respondents Through: 'LA.APP. 16/2011 LA.APP. 19/2011 LA.APP. 22/2011 LA.APP. 90/2011 LA.APP. 93/2011 Mr.Sanjay Poddar, Senior Advocate with MriSanjayPathak,Ms.NavlinSwain, ; MsJC.K.Kiranand Mr.S.N.Pandey,Advocates forUOI Mr. Yeeshu-Jain,Advocatefor UOI (R-1 to 5, 18-37,47, 49; 50-5|,55-73,75-81', 113-123 | Mr,AruiQBirbal,Mr.BanlceyBihariSharma, : Ms;Amita Singh, Mr.S.K.Sethi and Mr.Kunal Sharma,AdvocatesforDDA in (R-74-77& 80)1 Mr.MohinderSingh Charak,Advocate(R-63; mdll2) i AND . AAPP. 17/2011 \.APP. 20/2011 AAPP. 23/20.11 \.APP. 91/2011 \.APP. 94/2011 of Village Bamnoli L. L L. L. L. LA.App.No. 115/2011& connectedAppeals LA.APP. 18/2011 LA.APP. 21/2011 LA.APP. 24/2011 LA.APP. 92/2011 LA.APP. 95/2011 ii i;-- &• IS fH £>. If i: m i I i I!''. I!" r"' Iv K" J-a iT!HF^n,pswTi, r % rr"-^ f r j,., ^...... it I j a;®)! '»>-i'A. ,= , Mfi si f If 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. .115/2011 167/2011 171/2011 174/2011 178/2011 186/2011 192/2011 204/2011 207/2011 210/2011 263/2011 275/2011 293/2011 304/2011 • 307/2011 310/2011 313/2011 316/2011 319/2011 325/2011 355/2011 35,8/2011 364/2011 492/2011 495/2011 499/2011 503/2011 506/2011 513/2011 573/2011 576/2011 592/2011 196/2011 280/2011 283/2011 287/2011 • (Relatingto Notification^ "issuedunder Section4 oft? 1/2007-2008of06.08.2008, J-A.App.No. 115/20]I&, connectedAppealso .AjAPP.133/2011; .AJAPP. a.'app. -.A.!aPP. .A.kpp. .A.kpp. LA.kpp. iA.APP. LA.kpP. la.Xpp. A.APP. A.APP. A.APP. A.APP. A.APP. A.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.^P. LA.^P. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. la.a]pp. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. L^,. L^.. LA. LA. App. •Al^p. •Al)p. .App. 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 Village Bamnoli' . LA.APP. 166/2011 LA.APP. 170/2011 I LA.APP.a73/2011 i LA.APP. 176/2011 i LA.APP. 183/2011 i LA.APP. 189/2011 I 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.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) fo.9,(50)/2004/L&B,^A/13211of 04.11 2004 e AcquisitioriAct. 1894& AwardNo VillageBamnoli,NewDelhi) : % CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR ORDER ^01o02.2012

¶1Abovecaptionedipppalsand cross-objectionsrelateto acquisi of about 2100 bighas of land in VillageiBamnoli, Dellii notified :ion for PlannedDevelopmento Delhi vide Notificationof 4^ November,2004 under the LandAcquisition,Act, 1894 and since the impugnedorder of the ReferenceCourt in hese appealsunifqmilygrants compensationat the rate of?17,45,000/-eracre with statutorybenefits,therefore,v^ith the consentof learnedcounsel for the parties,who were presentat the final hearing, these matters were heard together and are being adjudicatedupon bythis common order.

¶2LandAcquisitionCollectorwhilerelyinguponthe indicativeprice fixed by GovernmentofkOT ofDelhi for agriculturalland in Delhi'for the periodmquestion,hiid determinedthe marketvalueofthe acquiied land in questionat the aforesaidrate of^15,70,000/-acreofleveled s for the acquiredland excavatedbeyond one meter. I.e., Block Blane, cpmpensationwas determinedat the rate of ^14,13,000/-acre. Not satisfied witl: tlje aforesaid Award of Land Acquisition Collector,before the Re::erenceCourt, appellants/claimantshad relied u^pon Notification of 24'" October, 1994 issued by the Municipal Corporationof Delhi declaring th^ land iri 20 villages including instant village to be irbanized. Reliance was also placed upon 'er,;2000declaringchange of land use of the and thereupon,Delhi DevelopmentAuthorry had preparedZonalDevelopnientPlan for DwarkaSub Cityin Dwaiia, Notificationof le"' OctoA acquired land in question le LA.Ap]p.No. ]15/2011&connectedAppealsof Village Bamnoli • New Delhi.

¶4While relying upon seven sale instances(Ex.PW-1/7to Ex.PW-1/13)ofthe year 1999,!relatingto agricultiirallandin VillagePochanpur purchased by a religious society-Radha Swami Satsang, Beasl and certifiedcopy of Salepeed of 27''^-September,2004 (Ex.PW-1/14)of -VillageBharthal,enhanceniientin compensationwas sought.'Reference Court upon evaluationof the evidence on record concludedthat there was ho evidenceto the effectthat location,potentialand utility of the land in the VillagesofiUhajthal,Pochanpurand Bamnoliis similarand had chosen not to rely uppn the aforesaid sale instances as the Sale . ' . ' • instanceofthis veryvillagewas available.

¶5In the absence p aforesaid sale instances f the evidence of the Vendor/Vendeeof the I Reference Court had discarded the aforesaid saleinstancesrelieduponby the appellants/claimants,whileadvertingto paragraphno: 29 ofthe:Apepc Courtdecisionin Lai Chandvs. Unioii^of India and Am., {im] 15 SCC 769. Before dealing with the slle instances(Ex.R-Iand Ex-R-jl)ofVillageBamnoli,ReferenceCourth'ad refused to apply Delhi Ddvelopme^Au^ority auction rate for ^the commercialplots or the sclieduleof market rates for Vasant Vihar by placingimplicitrelianceupon the Apex Court decision in Lai Chand (supra) to hold that market price for the developed land camiot [,e applied while determining,the market price of the ^undevelopU agricultural land in Delhi.

¶6To fortifytlie aforesaidfinding,ReferenceCourt has extensiveiy quotedthepassagesfrom theiApex CourtdecisioninLaiChand(suprL) and thereafter,had proceidedto discardheavilyreliedupon instance!if allotmentof 14.5 acres:of the acquired land by Delhi Development Authorityto the PowerDtpaHmentofGovernmentofNCT ofDelhi for LA.ApR.No. 115/20]]&connectedAppealsofViillage Bamnoli ' I construction of 715 Me holding as under:- :gaiWattGas Based Power Plant/Project,while

¶77The allotiT^entof1.5 hectareoflandfor apremiumof acre is an inter departmental allotment. - . , • both are agencies of state. Since no development/cor.striictioncan take place on the land in questionwithoutpermissionofDDA in view ofSection 12 of the Delhi Development Act, 1957 determination of premiumfor allotmentoflandin developmentarea isnotan ordinarysale betweenaprudentbuyerandseller.Premium of land in such on allotmentcannot be calledthe market price of land which:a prospectivebuyer of similar land sittingin his armchairwouldbe willingtopay.

¶78, Moreover, date of Notificati

04.11.2004 and ( Market price of I under Section '4 consideration for Notification under the Court shall no the value of the la. to which it will be 7: On the aspect of th being,in the development Reference Court are as ui. there is a timegapipfthreeyears between on under Section 4 of LA Act which is iate of allotrnent which is 25.11.2007^ md\ allottedafter 3 years of Notification of LA Act cannot be taken into determiningmarket value on the date of Section 4. As per Section24 of^LA Act, t take into considerationany increaseto id qcquiredlikelyto accruefrom the use put when reqidred. " e acquiredland being declaredurbanizedand of zone, the pertinentfindings returned by the "94. Land ofpeti in urbanized arec continued to be l Notification under would show that \ having explosive^ approved' or unap^ and it would negai potentialfor buildij der:- Honer is agriculturallandalthoughit is ' a\id in developmentzone. The land igricultufalland even till issuance of Section 4 of LA Act in the year 2004 n spite of being in capital of country population, no residential colony,; iprov^dcame up on, the landin question' epossibilityoflarid in questionhaving igs'iteevenin nearfuture.

¶95The petitione documentary evidei LA.App.No. 115/2011& connectedAppeals r has broughtno evidence, leave aside ice '{that the acquired land was suitable of yillage Bamnoli Page 5 of IS for putting up buildings, be they residentialor commercial or industrialas '-the [case may be. There is no building adtivitystartedon the'landin questioneven afterpassingof a decade since area was urbanized. " On the question ,of

¶8Acquisition Collector was instancesof 25"" October, 2) ofthis very village,R^: (Ex.R-2) as sale considei depressed and had chos depicting sale considerat comparable."

¶9In the instantappe appellants that the effect c the acquired lands being p'ptentialityof the acquired land, Reference Courthas takennote ofttie fact thatthis accjuiredland is surroundedon all four sides by Villages4Bharthal,Bijwasan,Pochanpurand Dhul Siras. Noticingthat acquire^land is.'in the vicinityof Dwarka, where DDA is developingcolonies and therefore,adoption of the minimum latesfor agriculturallandfix^ by the GovernmentofDelh: by the Land nqt justified.Upon consideringthe two sale 20p4 (Ex.R-1)and of20"' April, 2004 (Ex.R- •ference Court had discardedthe sale instance • • • . - 1 , ation of ^"9,02,496per acre was found to be • • • I 3n to rely jupon the sale instance (Ex.R-l) ion| of 7,45,1.08 which was found to be lIs, :it was vehementlyurged on behalfof the • i , , i fNotificationof 24^^ October, 1994 declaring fit jfor urbanizatiojiand Notificationof 16 October.2000regardingflie changeoflanduse underthe MasterPlanof Delhihas not beenconsidUiJby the ReferenceCourtto appreciatetil tme potentialofthe aequir;dland.Reliancewas placedupondecisionof the Apex Court in Specim LandAcquisitionOfficer&Am vs. M.Ii RufiqSaheb,(2011)7SCC7^4, by learnedcounselfor the appellantsti contendthat in view of the AforesaidNotifications,the acquired land cannotbe treatedas an agijiculturallandfor determinationofits marke value.

¶10Aforesaidcontentionis ijoticedfor beingoutrightlyrejectedas thl ^i^A.App.No.115/2011&connectedAppealsolVillageBamiJ ,acquired lands may not certainly undeveloped. G land applicable to Delhi Court. So, reliance pla.c to be termedas agriculturalland but they ware Government'sminimumrates for the agriculti:ral have been rightly discarded by the Reference I I sd upon MoK, Rafiq Saheb (supra), is clearly misplaced,as the ReferenceCourt has determinedthe marketvalue of the acquiredlandwhilerulyingupon a-saleexemplarofthisveryvillage.

¶11, There is no questionof discardingthe aforesaidNotifications.In fact, iiispiteof the aforesaidNotificationsno developmentactivityv^'as there on the acquiredlands as no permissionwas soughtby the owriers er DelhiDevelopmentAct and therefore,it can of the acquired lands unc be safely concluded that same could not be comp marketvalue of the acqu counsel upon Udho Dass 41 is of no avail. thq acquiredlands were undevelopedand t ired with developedlands for determiningt • • ' \ \ ired land. Thus, reManceplaced by appellan vs. StateofHaryana& Ors., 2010 (9) SCALE he tie s

¶12Rejectionof aucti.m rates of Pelhi DevelopmentAuthority, in Sector 20 and 22 of Dw learnedcounselfor the ap varka, by the Reference Court, is assailed by Doellantsby contendingthatthe acquiredlandis fully comparable with tie aforesaid.land and is in proximity aiid therefore,the marketvalY(;ofthe acquiredlandoughtto have been fixed .. .with referenceto the auctionrates ofthe DelhiDevelopmentAuthoritj. ReferenceCourthas not only|reHed uponthe decisionofApex Courtin Lai Chand vs. Union ofIndia andAnr., (2009) 15 SCC 769 but has extensivelyquoted relevant jjassages therefrom to hold tliat the sil considerationof the devebpedlands cannotbe appliedto the acquired ledly undeveloped. At the hearing in thess for^the appellant/pould not distinguish the lands which are undispu appeals, learned counsel decisionofthe Apex CourtinLaiChand(supra),whose ratiosquarely LA.App.No. 115/2011&connectedAppeals >fVillage Bamnoli applies to the instantcases]Therefore,! find that the ReferenceCourt has rightlyreftlsedto applyjDelhiDevelopmentAuthorityauctionra for determiningthe mark -13, : "^^lilereiterating;t] sale instances, are the h I Court for the purpose of !t value of the acquiredland. le yell settledprincipleoflaw that comparable :st ipiece of evidence to be consideredby determining'the compensation,Apoc Court the in Its recent decisionm RadltaMudaliyar Vs. SpecialTahsildar(Land Acquisition Taniil Nad:ii tiousing Board) (2010) 13 SCC 384 has observed as under:- '13. Comparable • salesinstancesare the safestmethodfor deterrninikgthe m^kk value ofthe acquiredland and as laid,down in ShajiKuriakosev..Indian Oil Corpn. Ltd, it shouldsatisfy the factors, inter alia (1) the sale must be genuine transactiok; (2) the sale deed must have been proximateto the date of issuanceof notificationunderSection4ofthe Act; (3) the landcovered by the sale must be in the vicinityofthe acquiredland; (4) the landcoveredby thesale must be similarto the acquired landand.(5) size oftheiplotofthe landcoveredby the sale be comparableto th^adquired land The sales instances closest to the date of notificationas be comparable to th shouldpreferably b - - nuujluuLLon as then alone it wouldsatisfythe touchstoneoftheprinciples ^ contemplatedunder Section ,23, of the Act, as held in KanwarSingh VS. UhionofIndia."

¶14Fixationoftlie marlietyalue ofthe accuiredland on the basis of thp sale instances(Ex.PW-l/7|toEx.PW-1/14)ofthe adjoiningvillages as sought by the appellartsstands rightly rejected by the Reference Court as the sale instancesofthis very villageare available.When it ij so, then there is no need to lopk for the sale instancesofthe adjoining villages. >oning,adoptionofthe L&DO rates to fix the

¶15On the aforesaidreas marketvalueofthe acquiredlapdssougljtby the appellantsis outrightly rejected. Appellants'counsel had relied upon decision of the Apei LA.App.No. 115/20]1&connectedAppealspi VillageBamlYblfiv permissible. The need obviated in view of the^ are available and so the the sale instances (Ex.P sale instance (Ex.R-1) reference to the aforesaid is of no consequence.

¶16During the course had strongly relied upon acres approximately) by-Department of Delhi Go^ of ^297.42 lacs per ac enhancementof compehs Court in Kiran Tandon vs.\AllahabadDevelopmentAuthority,(2004) I 10 see 745 and in Vdlliyai^tmalandAnr vs. SpecialTehsildar(Land Acquisition) and Ann, AIR 2011 SC 2937 to assert that deduction of 40% towards developmentchargeswas improperand where large area, not fully developed, is acquired,'horinally, deduction of about 33% ;o look for sale instances in the vicinity act;that the sale instances of the instant vilk I requirementof consideringthe applicabilityof N-IH to Ex.PW-1/14)would arise only wh'en is found to be not comparable. Therefore, decisionsby learnedcounselfor the appellants. IS is ige of hearing, learned counsel for the appellants the; instanceof allotmentof 14.5 hectares(37 Delhi DevelopmentAuthority to the Power ernment on leasehold basis at a consideration re with 2.5% annual ground rent to claim atiqn at the rate of^46 lacsper acre over and abovethe marketvalue fixedjby the ReferenceCourtas the allotmentof the aforesaidlandwas out ofthe acquiredland. With much vehemence, i-t was assertedby learned counsel for the appellantsthat the aforesaid allotment is clearly co^—^ , tnparable' aiid 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. id stand of the appellants,it was pointedout for the Respondentsthat aforesaidallotment

¶17To meet the aforesE, by learned senior counsel by Delhi DevelopmentAlthqrilyto Power DepartmentofGovemmdit .'LA'.App.No. ]15/201]& connectedAppealsofVillageBamnoii of Delhi was made in aforesaid land was hande of Delhi in February, 20 of November, ,2004 and steadily increased and basis to determine the •y Intervening gap is of thre ' I

¶18The factors to be acquired lands as reiterat and Natural Gas Corpori Anr, (2008) 14SCC 745, November, 2007 and the possession of; ;he d ojverto the PowerDepartmentof Governm(jnt )8 and the acquisitionof the land in questionis duriag the interveningperiod land rates had :refore, aforesaid allotment cannot be made'the market value of the acquired|land as the I i years. ;j considered to, deteriiiine the market value of the .ed by the Apex Courtin GeneralManager,Oil tion Ltd vSo Rameshbhai Jivanbhai Pate! and arei as under the "13. Primarily, tt four factors: situati surrounding area;^ the area, and the, areas, unless there vicinity, increase gradual, without ar hand, in urban or s isfaster, where the is construction acti price is at a much . In some pockets in high dema:nd for' touched even 30% nineties.

¶14On the other there was no chanc buyers, theprices st a nominal rate of significant differene in urban/semi-urban lands in the rural an value in urban/semi annum, the corresp> le increase in land,prices depends on on ofthe,land, natureofdevelopmentin avcdlahility:of landfor developmentin demandfor' land in the area. In rural IS any prospect of development in the 'n prices would be slow, steady and y saddenspurts orjumps. On the other 'emi\urbanareas, wherethe development dernandforlandis highandwherethere nty\all around, the escalation in market ligherrate, as comparedto rural areas, oig pities, due to rcXpiddevelopmentand land, the escalations in prices have to 60% or more per year, during the extreme, in remote rural areas where •e of.any developrhentand hardly any 2gn^tedforyearsor rose marginallyat '% or 2%per annum. There is thus a in increasesin marketvalue oflands 2areasandincreasesin marketvalueof •has. Therefore,ifthe increasein market •urban areas is about 10% to 15%per bondingincreasesin ruralareaswouldat i;,A.App.No. 115/2011&connectedAppealsofVillageBamnoli Page 10 of IS best be only aroun annum. This rule o nineties, to be ado^ evidence relating special reasons fo, any specific evide prices, then the inh the same.

¶15Normally, determining the escalation over the d half of it, that is about 5% to 7.5%per f thumb refers to thegeneral trend in the pted in the absence of clear and specific to increase in prices. Where there are applying a-higher rate of increase, or nee relating. to the actual increase in' rease to be .applied would depend upon •ecqurse is taken to the mode of larket value by providing appropriate proved market,value of nearby lands in evidenced by sale transactions or re there is no . evidence of any sale transactions or acquisitions of the neighbourhood. The.said method is 'here the relied-on sale transactions/ le the subjectacquisitionby only a few ^ouj; tofive years. Beyondthat it may be •elatesto a neighbouringland. What may tf ^he gap is only a few years, may unreliablestandard where the gap is 3, for determiningthe marketvalue,ofa 1992, adopting the annual increase nce\ to a sale or acquisition in 1970 or 2ny pitfalls. This is because, over the 'rate" of annual increase may itself hange apart from the likelihood of previous years acquisitions), whk contemporaneous \ comparable lands' reasonably safe :v acquisitions precec years, that is upto^ . unsafe, even if it r be a reliable stan become unsafe larger. For exampl land acquired in method with refere 1980 may have m course of years, th undergo drastic occurrence of vary sudden spurts. in (as in dard. and increase. 19,. Being mindful of t ONGC (supra), I fmd ing^periodsofsta^ationin prices or urices affecting the very standard of le ratio of the decisionof the Apex Court in that the instance of institutional allotment (EX.PW13/1)of the year 20p7 heavily relied upon by the appellant wouldnot be ausefulguideto determinethe marketvalueofthe land in mept was made after a period of three years n of the land in question.It is so said because evantperiodofthis veryvillagein questionJs question, as the said allot from the date of acquisitic the sale exemplarof the re LA.App,No. 115/2011& connectedAppealsof Village Bamnoli Page 11 of 15 i V available.Therefore,the: afpresaidinstance of allotmentof land to| PowerDepartmentof Governmentof Delhi has been rightlyrejected the Reference Court.

¶20Now what is requiredjtobe consideredis whetherthe sale instance. (Ex.R-1)relieduponby theiReferenceCourtis a comparableinstance not. Undisputedly,salejiistance(Ex.R-l)isjpfthis very villageand is October, 2004 whereas the land ,.in question was acquired v: Notification of Noveml)er,i2004. Evidently, aforesaid sale instance the by or of de (Ex.R-1) is not only rele by the appellants as to w make it inapplicable to d vantbut is comparableas it has not been shojvn /hatjarethe distinguishingfeatureswhich would ikerminethe marketvalueofthe acquiredlands. ,Findingofthe ReferenceCobrtthatwhenthe sale instance(Ex.R-1)was exhibitedno objectionwas raisedby the claimantsand as per section5'1-Act, 1894, a certified copy of a registered i n evidence and since this docunienthas be,en ' . . i theIRespondents,the same can be read against :.able. he aforesaidfinding of the ReferenceCourt, it counsel,forthe appellantsthat opportunityto show that sale instance(Ex.R-1)is not reliabile A of Land Acquisition document is acceptable! tendered in evidenceby them,remainsunimpeach 2|. However,to meet was submittedby learned lead rebuttal evidence to Or bonafide, an applicationto leadrebuttalevidencewas filedbeforethe ; j Reference Court which "w 2010 and therefore^ this 'as niegallyrejectedvide order of25"' August, I nlatter needs to be remanded back to the Reference Court to enable the appellantsto lead rebuttal evidence''to •'demolish aforesaid sale in

¶22First'of all, appella aforesaidsale instance(E face the legal conseque •LA.App.No. ]15/2011 connectedAppeals stance (Ex.R-1). • Its joughtto have-objectedto the exliibitionLf >c.Ri-l).Havingnot done so, appellantshave to nce:s. Secondly, even if application of the of Village Bamnoli Page 12ofl5i appellantsfor leadinglebUttal evidencewas rejectedby the Reference Court,nothinghad stop]3ed|them.fiorhmovingan apphcationfor lea<iing additionalevidencein'the appealto,lea^ evidencein order to demolish the sale instance (Ex.E.l)!. Not,only this, even during the course of hearing,nothingwas urged;to show as to how the sale instance(Ex.FL-1) I comparable. : e evidence on record, I am of the considered ^e ^ourthas rightlyreliedupon the sale instance erriarketvalueofthe acquiredlands.Finding!no -is not genuine/rehable o

¶23In the light of tt opinion that the Referent (Ex.R-1) to determine th merit in the instantapp(;als!of claimantsand cross-objectionby one! of ssedwhile leavingthe partiesto beartheirown them, the same are dism costs.

¶24So far as appeals substancemthem, becaise the determinationofthe marketvalue of acquiredland by the RefjrenceCourthas been done whilerelyingupon the sale instance (Ex.R-1)produced by the Respondentsthemselvss. the classificationofthe acquiredland into 'A' the!ReferenpeCoi|rt is concerned,I find that reasonablebasis-..That is to say, land with top :opisoil cannotbeputatpar as the marketvalue ofthelandwithouttop soilis boundto be lesserthanthemarketvalue|of the landwith top soil.

¶25Endorsingthe price differentiationbetween'A' categorylandmid B' category land, my esteemedbrother Pradeep Nandrajog,J.. in a recentdecisionin LA.App.llto.266/2008,titledas JaiSingh&0.s. |v.. UnionofIndia&Ors.. renderedon 23"' August2011,whilerelying1 Regardingdoing away o block and 'B' Block by this classification has a soil and the land without the decision of the Divi UnionofIndia, 2006 (Vt) LA.App..No. ]15/2011&connectedAppeals of the Respondentsare concerned, I findlno ;he ion: Bench of this court in Ga/mJ AD Delhi 13, has held as under:- V5. of VillageBamnbii ^age 13on 5 I "J6. In Gajraj' , worked out wa hereinabove that pertained to the d price for Category acre g.ndfor Cat ^9,51,121/-per ' about 2.5% with land. e-'ingh'scase (supra), theprice differential ^25,000./- per acre. I have noted the acquisition.inGajraj Singh's case 2te 75.11.1996.In Gajraj Singh's case the 'A ' landdeterminedwas ^9,76,121/-per 'egoiy 'B'.land the price determined was 'crd and the price differential comes to reference to the price of Category 'A'' d

¶57I thus hold guiding star for well and thus I 'B' and Category, differential should Iiat^ Gajraj Singh's case should be my j^ricc differentialin the instant cases as Wtfiat whereverCategory A', Categoiy 'C'lhavetP be differentiatedonprice, the be 2.5%." hoi

¶26Consequentially,t , 'A'category and'B'cat I potentiality and because cannot be sustained in th the claim of the Union indicative'price of agric Appellant - UOI itself h rejection.

¶27In viewofthe.afori appeals filed by claiman claimants and the same Union of India are conce that the compensationa categoiy of lands (as n Collector)is reducedfrom

¶28Beforepartingthis brevity of this order is judgment is well consider le finding,ofthe ReferenceCourtregarding ;he jgop^land beingsimilarlysituatedhavingsaine they are;acquiredfor the same publicpurpose, e lightofthe aforesaidobservations.However, of| India, to seek adoption of the minimum altiiral land in Delhi while forgettingthat the reliedupon the sale instance(Ex.R-1),merits as -A.App.No.115/2011&connectedAppeals !-g4ingnarration,I find thatno substancein the ts as well as in cross objectionof one of the are(dismissed. So far as the appeals filed by •nef the same,are partlyallowedto the extent wai^ded by the Reference Court[for the 'B' loticed in the Award of the Land' Acquisitiin ^17,45,000peracreto ^17,01,375/-peracre. prder,I would likeVtobring on recordthat the occasioned,by the fact that the impugnJd •ed; on facts and the law. Therefore,I have of VillageBamnoli purposefully not adverted relevant evidence, i.e. c consideration by me in this

¶29The above captioned with directionto the Regi deposited by either side w concerned Reference Cour; to the entire evidence on record and the ' the sale exemplars has been taken into order. ! I . ^ i ' appeals and cross-objectionare disposed'of stryitoreriiitthecompensationamount,ifany, ith ithe RegistrarGeneralofthis Court, to the February 01, 2012 pkb/rs l-A.App.No,ll5/201I&co"nec,edApp«b"fv iJIageBamnoli IL GAUR) JUDGE PageJ5of IS

$—1 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + LA. APP. 169/2011 UNION OF INDIA Appellant Through Mr. Yeeshu Jain, Advocate versus LAKHI RAM & ANR Respondents Through None CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR