Union of India v. Harbans Lal & Anr

ORDER

23.02.2012

¶1The date before the Joint Registrar stands cancelled as learned counselfor the appellant/UOIstatesthat fate of this appeal would be governedby LA.APP No.115/2011 'JaiPrakash Vs. Union ofIndia& Another', renderedon 1®'February,2012.

¶2In the light of aforesaid,this appeal is disposedof in terms of decisionin LA APP No.115/20II 'JaiPrakash Vs. Union ofIndia cS: Another',renderedon 1''February,2012 with no ordersasto costs. FEBRUARY 23, 2012 b IL GAUR, J fee •' /\)oy>t^ y\oc- /'rji/c-cZ ^ &Kpj£Lf>->^( 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. THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI • Reserved on: Jamian> 12, 2011 Pronounced on: February 01, 2012 LA.AjPB. U5/2Q1r-'(VILLAGE BAMNOLI) JAIPRAKASH ) 'Through: Appellant Mr.^^.S.Maan,Mr.AmitMaan,Mr.R.S.Verma,! Mr.Jai Prakash, Ms.Smita Maan and MrJitin j lewathia, Advocates(R-14-16,22, 30,.34,38-! 45,^1-53) Mr.Is|lohinderSinghCharak,Advocatefor aDpellantin R-112 and respondent in R-63 Mr.B.D.Sharma, Mr.S.K.Rout, Mr.B.K.Routray, Mr.Vinay Kumar, Advocates irf(R-84.to86, 88-102,104) i Mr.S.K.Routand Mr.B.K.Routray,Advocatesi .(in R-74 and for respondent on R-79) versus UNIONOF INDIA&AI^. ; ' Respondents Through: ^r.S,anjayPoddar,SeniorAdvocatewith : Njlr.SjanjayPathak,Ms.NavlinSwain, Ms.K.K.Kiran and Mr.S.N.Pandey, Advocates ' firUOI IVjIr. YeeshuJain,Advocatefor UOI (R-1 to 5, 18-37,47,49,50-52,55-73,75-81,113-123 . Ivfr.ArunBirbal,Mr.BanlceyBihariSharma, ]\|s.^iiitaSingh,Mr.S.K.Sethiand Mr.Kunal Sharma, Advocates for DDA in (R-74-77 & 8f)) Iv^.TsjlohinderSinghCharak,Advocate(R-(S3 aijid 112) f AND LA.APR. 16/2011 LA.APP. 19/2011 LA.APP. 22/2011 I.A.AfP.90/2011 LA.APP. 93/2011 LA.APP. 17/2011 LA.APP. 20/2011 LA.APP. 23/2011 LA.APP. 91/2011 LA.APP. 94/2011 LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. 18/2011 21/2011 24/2011 92/2011 95/2011 -A'.ApP.'No. 115/2011& connectedAppealscf VillageBamndli ii pa::;'-;, V f- ? .V. I b;-, Pf; k t,- if:. k'- • # LA.APP. 115/2011 LA.APP. 167/2011 LA.APP, 171/2011 LA.APP. 174/2011 LA.APP. 178/2011 LA.APP. 186/2011 LA.APP. 192/2011 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. 307/2011 LA.APP. 310/2011 LA.APP. 313/2011 LA.APP. 316/2011 LA.APP. 319/2011 LA.APP. 325/2011 LA.APP. 355/2011 LA.APP. 358/2011 LA.APP. 364/2011 LA.APP. 492/2011 LA.APP. 495/2011 LA.APP. 499/2011 LA.APP. 503/2011 LA.APP. 506/2011 LA.APP. 513/2011 LA.APP. 573/2011 LA.APP. 576/2011 LA.APP. 592/2011 LA.App. 196/2011 LA.App. 280/2011 LA.App..2,83/2011 LA.App. 287/2011 l-A.App.No. 115/2011& connectedAppealsof LA.APP. 133/2011 L^.AIpP.168/2011 L^.Atp.172/2011 L^.AjPP.175/2011 LA.APP. 179/2011 I:A.a1pP.187/2011 LA.APP. 193/2011 L^.AjPP.205/2011 LA.APP. 208/2011 LA.APP. 211/2011 LA.APP. 264/2011 LA.APP. 276/2011 LA.APP. 295/2011 LA.Ai^P.305/2011 LA.APP. 308/2011 LA.APP.311/2011 LA.APP. 314/2011 LA.APP. 317/2011 LA.APP. 320/2011 LA.AIfP. 352/2011 LA.APP. 356/2011 LA.APP. 359/2011 LA.AIiP.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.Ap|).288/2011 LA.APP. 166/2011 LA.APP. 170/2011 LA.APP. 173/2011 ; LA.APP. 176/2011 : LA. APP. 183/2011 LA. APP. 189/201L 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 I (Cross-objection), i ' I (Relatingto Notificationn|).9(I50)/2004/L&B/LA/13211of 04.11.200^ Section4ofthe L^ndAcquisitionAct, 1894& AwardNoJ 1/2007-2008of06.08.2008,VillageBamnoli,NewDelhi) [ Village Bamnoli '% CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTIC E SUNIL'GAUR ORDER

01.02.2012 ••u1... Above captioned appeals and cross-objections relate to acquisition of about 2100 bighas of land in Village Bamnoli, Delhi notified for PlannedDevelopmentof Delhi vide Notificationof 4^"^ November,2004 . i n A 3se under the Land Acquisitic the Reference Court in th the rate of ?17,45,000 pe the consent of learned co final hearing, these matter adjudicated upon by this c 2: Land Acquisition G ct, 1894 and since the impugned order |of appeals' uniformly grants compensation, at acre with statutory benefits, therefore, with ansel for the parties, who were present at the rs were heard; together and are being common order. , ! lollector while relying upon the indicative price fixed by Governmentof^rCTj ofDelhi for agriculturalland in Delhi for the periodin question,had determined'the marketvalueofthe acquired . |.andin questionat the aforesaidrate of ^15,70,000/-acre of leveled for the acquiredland excavatedbeyond orie ! • ! compensation was determined at the rate of land in Block A, whereas meter, i.e.. Block B land, ^14,13,000/-/?er acre. •

¶3-. Not satisfied with i Cdilector, before the Re,f upoii Notification of 24 the aforesaid. Award of Land Acquisition jrence Court, appellants/claimants had relied I , I October, 1994 issued by the Municipal Corporationof Delhi declaring the land in 20 villages including the rbanized. Reliance was also placed uppn instant village to be p Notification of 16^'^ Octot acquired land in question had prepared Zonal Devel •>, - •L'A.App.No. 115/2011& connectedAppeals er, 2000 declaring change of land use of th . ' ' ' i and thereupon,Delhi DevelopmentAuthority DpmentPlan for DwarkaSub City inlDwarka, of Village Bamnoli . New Delhi.

¶4While relying upon seven sale instances(Ex.PW-1/7to Ex.PW 1/13)ofthe year 1999,relatingto agriculturallandin VillagePochanpu .-purchasedby a religious soqiety - Radha Swami Satsang, Beas, and certifiedcopy of Sale De(;d of 27* September,2004 (Ex.PW-l/i4)of VillageBharthal,enhancementin compensationwas sought. Reference the' evidence on record concluded that there wa^ no evidenceto the effectthat location,potentialand utilityof the land in the Villagesof Bhii^hal,Pochanpurand Bamnoliis similarand had chosen not to ^rely uionjthe aforesaid sale instances as the Sal6 ! i. { instanceof ^hisvery villagewas available.

¶5In the absence of: ;he evidence of the Vendor/Vendeeof the ' I aforesaid sale instances.Reference.Court had discardedthe aforesaid sale instancesrelieduponby the appellants/claimants,whileadvertingtc» 3X CourtdecisioninLai Chand Union of 5 see 769. Before dealing with the sale: -II) ofVillage Bamnoli, Reference Court'had I I evelopinent Authority auction rate for the hedule ofmarket rates for Vasant Vihar by paragraph no: 29 of the Ap India and Ann, (2009) ^ instances (Ex.R-I and Ex.R refused to apply Delhi E • commercial plots or the sc placing implicit reliance u (supra) to hold that mark - applied while determinin agricultural land in Delhi. ;

¶6To fortify the aforesaid quoted the passages from th 301] et the Apex Cou^t decision in Lai Ghana )rice for the developed land cannot be he market price of the undeveloped finding, ReferenceCourt has extensively .e Apex Courtdecisionin Lai Chand(supra) and thereafter,had proceeded1o discardheavilyreliedupon instanceo'f allotment of 14.5 acres of thp acquu-ed land by Delhi Development Authorityto the PowerDepartmentofGovernmentofNCT ofDelhi for l-A.App.No. 115/20]1& connectedAppealsol VillageBamnoli Page4 of 15' construction of 715 Mega holding as under;- '17. The allotment WjEtt Gas Based Power Plant/Project,while ^297.42 lakh per acre of1.5hectare oflandfor a premiumof is an inter departmental allotment. Buyer and seller .both are agencies of state. Since no development/ constr question without pe, uction can take place on the land in •missionof DDA In view ofSection 12 of the Delhi Development Act, 1957 determination of premiumfor allotment ofland in developmentarea is not an ordinary sale betweena prudent buyerand seller. Premium of land in' such an price of land whicj sitting in his armcha

¶78, Moreover, the date of Notification

04.11.2004 and dk Market pHce of lam under Section allotment cannot be called the market prospective buyer of similar land y^^ouldbe willingtopay.- I re is a time gap of three years between un^er Section 4 of LA Act which is e of allotment, which is 25.11.2007. i allotted after 3 years of Notification of a LA Act cdnnot he taken into considerationfor determiningmarket value on the date of Notificationunder Sdctipn 4. As per Section24 of LA Act, the Courtshall not take into considerationany increaseto the value of the land: acquired likely to accrue from the use to which it will beput when required. "

7... Onthe aspectofthe'Requiredlandbeingdeclaredurbanizedand o being in the development Reference Court are as under zone, the pertinent findings returned by the "94. Land ofpetitioner^is agriculturalland althoughit is in urbanized area'.and, in development zone. The land continue^ to be agriculturalland even till issuance of Notificationunder Sectipn 4 of LA Act in the year 2004 ^would show that in spite of being in capital of country '^'iffaving explosive population, no residential colony, 'Approvedor unapprove^came up on the land in question possibilityof land in question having •site even in near future. ^qnd it would negate {potentialfor buildjng

¶95The petitioner documentary evidenc '' "LA.App.No. i15/2011& connectedAppealsb has brought no evidence, leave aside that the acquired, land was suitable Village Bamnoli, Page 5 of IS for putting up buildings, be they residentialor commercial' or industrialas the cdse may be. There is no building • question even after passing of , was urbanized." - activity smarted on th a decade since area ,S.. On the question of Court has taken note of thi all four sides by Villages Siras. Noticing that acquired DDA is developing colonies po :entiality of the acquired land, Referents fact that this acquired land is sun'ounded on Bharthal, Bijwasan,Pochanpurand Dhul land is in the yicinity of Dwarka, where I and therefore, adoption of the minimuixi rates for agriculturallandfixedby the GovernmentofDelhiby the Land .Acquisition Collector was not justified..Upon consideringthe two sale • • . i instancesof25^'^ October,!i004 (Ex.R-1)and pf20^^ April, 2004 (Ex.I^i 2) ofthis veiy village,Reference Court,had discardedthe sale instance I (Ex.R-2) as sale considerationof^9,02,496per acre was found to be depressed and had chose:i t(D rely upon the sale instance (Ex.R-1j depicting sale consideratibnof 7,45,1,08 which was found to be I comparable."

¶9I In the instantappeals,i; was vehementlyurged on behalfof the appellantsthatthe effect.ol'Notification.of24® October,1994 declarinj the acquired lands being •th It for urbanization and Notification df 16 October,2000 regardingthe changeoflanduse underthe MasterPlan of Delhi has not been considered;bythe ReferenceCourtto appreciatethe tiuepotentialofthe acquiredland. Reliancewas placedupon decisionof the Apex Court in SpecialLandAcquisitionOfficer& Am vs'. M.K RafiqSaheb,(2011)7SCC 714, by learnedcounselfor the appellantsti - , contend that in view of th cannotbe treated as an agri • value.

¶104foresaid contention • . . I : 5; ; LA.App.No. 115/2ipl]& connectedAppealsof a: cull is n 'oresaidNotifications,the acquired land ,ural land for determination of its market oticedfor beingoutrightlyrejectedas the Village Bamnoli -r i ' , • • - acquiredlands may not to be termedas agriculturalland but they were certainlyundeveloped.Government'sniinimumrates for the agricultural ' 'I ! I land ^plicableto Delhi have 'Court..';So, reliance placed mispl£^!|ed,-asthe Referenc V,' the ac^^iredlandwhilerelying 1,1. There is-no questionof discardingthe aforesaidNotifications.lii fact, iij^piteof the aforesaidNotificationsno developmentactivitywas been rightly discarded by the Reference upon M.K. Rqfiq Saheb (supra), is^ clearly Court has determined the market value of upona saleexemplarof thisvery village'. there on the acquired lands as no pemission was sought by the owners ofthe RequiredlandsunderDelhiDevelopmentAct and therefore,it can be safely concludedthat the apquiredlands were undevelopedand the^ same could not be comparedVi'ith developedlands for determiningthe' marketvalue of the acquire counsel upon Udho Dass vs, 41 is of no avail. d land. Thus, relianceplaced by appellant's State ofHaryana & Ors., 2010 (9) SCALE

¶12Rejection of auction Sector 20 and 22' of Dwar learnedcounselfor the appe . fully cpmparable |with the rat 3s of Delhi Development Authority^ in ca, by the Reference Court, is assailed by lantsby contendingthat the acquiredlandis afpresaid land and is in proximity and therefore,the marketvalueoftlje,acquiredlandoughtto have been fixed with referenceto the auctionrajtes ofthe DelhiDevelopmentAuthority. ReferenceCourthas not onl/ reliedupon the decisionofApex Courtiii and Am., (2009) 15 SCC 769 but has Lai Chand vs. Union of India extensively quoted relevant -• considerationof the develop lands which are undisputeily appeals, learned counsel fc , decision of the Apex Court ,'Ij-A.App.No. 115/2011& connectedAppealsof passages therefrom to hold that the sale ed lands cannot be appliedto the acquired undeveloped. At the hearing in these, r tie appellant could not distinguish the :n Lai Chand (supra), whose ratio squarelyi /illage Bamnoli « applies to the instant cases ; ha^ rigfitlyrefusedto appl^ for determiningthe market

¶13IVhilereiteratingthe^ ,saie instances,ate the best I Court-jforthe purposeof de I Therefore,I' fmd that the ReferenceCourt Pelhi DevelopmentAuthorityauctionrates i • • ' i 'alupofthe acquiredland. i veil settledprincipleoflaw that comparable piece of evidence'tobe consideredby the terminingthe compensation,Apex Coui-1; in Its recpnt decisionin' Radha Mudaliyar Vs. SpecialTahsildar(Land sing Board) (2010) 13 SCC 384 has Acquisition Tamil Nadu Hou observed as under:- "13. Comparable sal

¶14t ^es instances,are the safestmethodfor determiningthe markk value ofthe acquiredland and as laid down in Shaji Ki should satisfy the fdc genuine transaction;) kose v:.IndianOil Corpn. Ltd., it inter alia (If the sale must be

(2) the sale deed, must have been executedat the time proximateto the date ofissuanceof notification under Sect' by the sale must be in the land covered by th Tia f^ors ion the 4 of the Act; (3) the land covered vicinityof the acquired land; (4) , ?sale m.ust be similarto the acquired landand (5) size oftheplotofthe landcoveredby the sale be comparableto thedfquired land The sales instances shouldpreferablybe\closestto.the date ofnotificationas then alone it wouldsatisfy^the touchstoneoftheprinciples contemplatedunder ^ction 23 of the Act, as held in KanwarSinghvs. UnionofIndia." Fixation of the market tihe sale instances(Ex.PW-1/' as sought by the appellants va][ue of the acquired land on the basis of to Ex.PW-1/14)of the adjoiningvillages, stands rightly rejected by the Reference Court as the sale instancesof|this very village4re available.When it is i so,, then there is no need to Ipok for the sale instancesof the adjoining| villages, adoptionofthe L&DO rates tio fix the ands soughtby the appellantsis outrightly haid relied upon decision of the Apex

¶15Oa the aforesaidreasoning marketvalue of the acquired! rejected. Appellants' counsel i.App.No. 115/2Q,11& coiinectedAppealsofVi lage Bamnoli # Acquisition) and Anr., All 40% towards development not fully developed, is acq permissible. The need to obviated in view of the fact are available and so the rec the sale instances (Ex.PW-I sale instance (Ex.R-1) is reference to the aforesaid de is of no consequence.

¶16During the course of Court in Kiran Tandon vs. Allahabad Development Authority, (2004) 10 SQC 745 and in Valliyamrkaland Anr vs.;Special Tehsildar (Land 2011 SC',2937 to assert that deduction of I charges was improper and where large area, lirejd, normally,deductionof about 33% is look for sale'instances in the vicinity is th4t the sale instancesof the instantvillage uirement of consideringthe apphcabilityof j n to Ex.PW-r/14) would arise only when I found to be not comparable. Therefore, I cisionsby learnedcounselfor the appellants hearing, learned counsel for the appellgints Had stronglyrelied upon the instanceof.allotmentof 14.5 hectares(37 acres approximately) by D ilhi Development Authority to the Power Departmentof Delhi Governmenton leaseholdbasis at a consideration of t297.42 lacs per acre wi|;h 2.5% annual ground rent to claim enliancementofcompensationat the rate of^^40 lacsper acre over and t I abovethe marketvalue fixed b}f the ReferenceCourt as the allotmentof the aforesaidland was out pfthe 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 enhaicedwhile treatingthe acquiredland to' be at par with the. aforesaid jland allotted to Power Department of GovernmentofDelhi. j ^ ' i I ^ • . I j stand of the appellants,it was pointedout| Tthe Respondentsthat aforesaidallotment^

¶17To meet the' aforesaid by learned senior counsel fc by Delhi DevelopmentAuthorityto Power Departmentof Government' .-A,ApjD.No.115/2011& connectedAppealsofVillageBainnoli of Delhi was made in N aforesaid land was handed ,c ~of Delhi in February,2008 of November, 2004 and durinlg the interveningperiod land rates had steadily increased,and therefore, aforesaiiiallotment cannot be made the basis to determine the market value .of the acquired land as the interveninggap is ofthreeyears. . ? | I sidered to determine the market value of the he Apex Courtin GeneralManager,Oil Jd vs. Rameshbhai Jivanbhai Patel and under:-

¶18The factors to be con acquired lands as reiterated and Natural Gas Corporation •Am, (2008) 14 SCC 745, are as "13. Primarily, the four factors: situation surrounding area, av the area, and the de areas, unless there is vicinity, increase in gradual, without any hand, in urban or sem isfaster, where the de is construction dctivit Dvember, 2007 and the possession of the i 'Ver to the Power Department of Government and the acquisitionof the land in questionis by increase-in land pi^ices depends on ofifhe land, nature ofdevelopmentin ailabilityof land for developmentin n'ahd for land in the area. In rural any prospect of development in the prices would be slow, steady and mdden spurts 'or jumps. On the other i-uri)anareas, where the development nandfor land is high and where there ' ail around, the escalation in market price is at a much higherrate, as comparedto rural areas. In somepocketsin big citj.es, due to rapid'developmentand high demand for •land. touched even 30% to nineties. the escalations in prices have

¶14On the other ey there was no chance value in urban/semi-w 50% or more per year, during the :tre:me, in remote rural areas where of any developmentand hardly any buyers, thepricesstagnatedforyearsor rose marginallyat a nominal rate of 1% or 2% per armmk There is thus a significantdifferencein ii^creasesin marketvalue oflands in urban/semi-urbanarea'sand increasesin marketvalueof lands in the ruralareas. Therefore,ifthe increasein market^ •ban areas is about 10% to 15%per annum, the correspondingincreases in rural areas wouldat L4.Arp.No. 115/2011& connectedAppealsofvillageBamno'li'.. V best be only around half of it, that is about 5% ,to 7.5% per annum. This rule of thump refersto 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 reasons for applying a higher mte of increase, or any specific evidence rklating "to\ the uctual increase in prices, then the increase to he applied would depend y.pon the same.

¶15Normally, recourse is taken to the mode., of determining the market value by pro\nding appropriate oved market value of nearby lands in evidenced by sale transactions or there is no evidence of any escalation over the p\ previous years . (as' acquisitions), where contemporaneous sale comparable, lands in\ the reasonably safe where acquisitions precede the years, that is upto fdi land acquired in '1 method with referenc transactions or acquisitions of aeighbourhood. The said method is the relj,ed-on sale transactions/ subject'acquisition by only a few ir to five years. Beyond that it may be unsafe, even if it relates to a neighbouring land. What may be a reliable standar become unsafe and 'i d if the gap is only a few years, may mreliable standard where the gap is larger. For example, for determining the market value of a 992, adopting the annual increase e th a sale or acquisitionin 1970 or 1980 may have mar^y.pitfalls. This is because, over the course of years, the of annual iincrease may itself undergo drastic chang^ apart'from'' the likelihood of occurrence of varying periods of stagflation in prices or sudden spurts in prices affecting the very standard of " increase." ' \ " • '• i

¶19Being mindful of the ratio of the'decision of the Apex Court ONGC (supra), I find ;that 'rate' I I in the^ instance of institutional allotmerit (EX.PW13/1) of the year 2007 heavily relied upon by the appellants would, not be a useful guide to question, as the said allotmen from the date of acquisition determine the market value of the land in i ; was made after a period of three years ofjthe land in question. It is so said because the sale-exemplarof the rel(;vahtperiodof this very village in questionis LA,App.No. 115/2011& connectedAppealsofVillageBamnoli available. Therefore, the aforesaid instance of allotment of land to the PowerDepartmentof Govehinientof Delhi has been rightlyrejectedby •i • I " ; the Reference Court. I i !

¶26•Now whatis required (Ex;R-l) relied upon by the j to be considered is whether the sale instance Reference Court is a comparable instance or not. Undisputedly,sale instance(Ex.R-1)is ofthis very villageand is of land in question was acquired \dde )04. Evidently, aforesaid sale instance t but is comparable as it has not been shown are the distinguishing features which would mine the marketvalue of the acquiredlands. tha.t,whenthe sale instance (Ex.R-1)was exhibitedno objectionwasWisedby the claimaintsand as per section51-A of Land Acquisition Act, 1894, a certified copy of a registered document is acceptable in' evidence and since this document has been tenderedin evidenceby the Respondents,the same can be read against them, remains unimpeachab

¶21However, to meet the was submitted by learned c lead rebuttalevidenceto shiw or bona fide, an application Reference Court which was October, 2004 whereas ;t Notification of November. (Ex.R-1) is not only relevan : • ' t by the appellants as to what make it inapplicable to detei Finding of the Reference Court le e. aforesaid finding of the Reference Court, it )unsel for the appellants that opportunityto ;hat sale instance, (Ex.R-1) is not reliable ;o lead rebuttal .evidence was filed illegallyrejectedvide order of 25"' August, 2010 pd therefore, this matt|er needs to be remanded back to the Reference Court to enable [the appellants to lead rebuttal evidence to before the I th demolish aforesaid sale instance

22." First of all, appellants ou (Ex.R-1). • : ^ht to have objected to the exliibition of aforesaid sale instance (ExjR-lj. Having not d(Jne so, appellants have to face the legal consequenc 3S. Secondly, even if application of thd L/^.App.No. 115/2011.& connectedAppealsof Village Bamndli # appellantsfor leading rebutt'^1 evidencewas' rejectedby the Referen Court,nothinghad stoppedthem from movingan applicationfor lead:ng •. . • !' I • . ' ' ' I additionalevidencein the apjpealto lead evidencein orderto'demolish the sale; instance (Ex.Rfl).Wot only this, even during the courseiof hearing,nothingwas ur^edto show,as to how the saleinstance(Ex.R^I) isnot genuine/rehableor'comparable. T j .23. In the light of the evidence on record, I am of the considered opinionthatthe ReferenceCciurthas rightlyrelieduponthe sale instanc^e (Ex.R-1)to determinethe maicetvalueofihq acquiredlands.Finding'ro merit in the instantappeals^of claimantsand cross-objectionby oneIof while';leavingthe partiesto beartheir ow them, the same are dismissed costs.

¶24So far as appealsof the Respondentsare concerned,1 find no substancein them, becausethe determinationofthe marketvalue ofthe acquiredland bythe RefeiencjeCourthas been done whilerelyingupon the sale instance (Ex.R-'l) pjroduced.by the Respondentsthemselves. [ i;he|classificationofthe acquiredland into 'A' Regardingdoing'away of block and 'B' Block by t De n le ReferenceCourt, is concerned,I find thi this, classificationhas areasohablebasis. That is to say, land with top Qml la-nirl TX7i-fl-i/-viT+ ^1 ^ .i soil and the land without tc ofthe landwithbiittop soi the land with top soil. t

¶25Endorsingthe price 'B' category land, my es ps is 3il cannotbe put at par as the market value Doundto be lessferthan the market value of the decision of the Divisi UnionofIndia, 2006 (VI^ differentiationbetween'A' categoryland arid :eemed brother Pradeep Nandrajog,jJ., !in recentdecisionin LA.AppjNo.266/2008,titledas Jm Singh &\Ors. vs Union ofIndia&Ors., renderedon 23'"''August2011,,whilerelyingor a m Bench of this court in Gajraj Singh vs. AD Delhi ,;13, has held as under:- LA.App.No.115/i2011& connectedAppealsdfVillageBamnolr . M "56. In Gajraj Singi worked out was % hereinabove that the pertained to the date price for Category 'A I's case (supra), the.price differential 25,poo/- per acre. I have noted acquisition in Gajraj Singh's case

15.11,1996.In.Gajraj Singh 's case the ' land,determinedv^as ^9,76,121/-per acre and for Category 'B' land the price determined was ^9,51,121/-^per acre and the priceddifferentialcomes to about 2.5% with reference to the price of Category 'A' land.

¶57I thus hold that guiding star for pric Gajraj Singh's case should be. my differential in the instant cases as welland thus I holdthat whereverCategory 'ACategory 'B' and Category 'C differential should be

¶26Consequentially, the ; 'A' categoiy and 'B' categp hav^e to be differentiatedonprice] the

2.5%." c, i , I , ' , ' inding of the Reference Court regardingthe ry l;andbeingsimilarlysituatedhavingsame potentialityand becausethejy are acquiredfor the same publicpurpose, cannot be sustained in the 1 the claim , indicative Appellant rejection. ,

¶27In view of the,-afore-g appeals filed by claimants ght of the aforesaid observations.However, of the Union ol Indi^, to seek adoption of the minimum price of agricultural,land in Delhi while forgettingthat the I I , ; UOI itselfhas|relie|dupon the sale instance(Ex.R-1),merits Ding narration, I find that no substance in the as well as in cross objection of one of the j claimantsand the same are dismissed. So far as the appeals filed by Union of India are concerned,the same are partly allowedto the extent that the compensation awarded by the Reference Court for the 'B'l category of lands,(as noticedjin the Award of the Land Acquisition . Collector) is reduced from 7, \ -28. Before parting this orjder. 5,000per acre to ?17,01,375/-/?eracre. I would like to bring on record that the brevity of; this order is p xasioned by the fact that the impugned jiidgmentis well consideredon facts and thd law. Therefore, I have 'LA.App.No.115/2011& connectedAppealsof ! • • : Village Bamnoli t punposefull}^ not adverted to the entire evidence on record and the , .' ' ! i relevant evidence, i.e. of tiie jsale exemplars has been taken into consideration by me;in .this order.! ;

¶29The above captionedappeals and cross-objectionare disposedof with directionto the Registryjto remitthe compensationamount,if any, deposited by either side with concerned Reference Court. the Registrar General of this Court, to the February 01, 2012 pkb/rs I I ! I JNIL JUDGE f/Hf ' I I ; ijA'ApP-No-115/2011& connectedAppealsofViJlagelBamnoli

r $-4 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + LA. APP. 182/2011 % UNION OF INDIA versus Appellant Through Mr. Yeeshu Jain, Advocate HARBANS LAL & ANR Respondent Through Mr. S. K. Sethi, Advocate for DDA/Respondent No.2 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR