Rajesh Kumar v. Union of India & Anr

ORDER

01.02.2012 Reserved on: January 12. 2012 Pronounced on: February 01. 2012 Appellant Mr.B.S.Maan, Mr.Amit Maan, Mr.R.S.Verma, Mr.Jai Prakash,Ms.SmitaMaan and Mr.JitinTewathia, Advocates(R-14-16,22, 30, 34, 38-45,51-53) Mr.MohinderSinghCharak,Advocateforappellantin R-112 and respondent in R-63 Mr.B.D.Sharma,Mr.S.K.Rout,Mr.B.K.Routray, Mr.VinayKumar,Advocatesin (R-84to 86,88-102, 104) Mr.S.K.RoutandMr.B.K.Routray,Advocates(inR-74 andfor respondenton R-79) Respondent Mr.SanjayPoddar,SeniorAdvocatewithMr.Sanjay Pathak, Ms.Navlin Swain, Ms.K.K.Kiran and Mr.S.N.Pandey, Advocates for UOI Mr. YeeshuJain,AdvocateforUOI (R-1 to 5, 18-37, 47, 49,50-52, 55-73, 75-81, 113-123 Mr.ArunBirbal,Mr.BankeyBihari Sharma,Ms.Amita Singh,Mr.S.K.SethiandMr.KunalSharma,Advocates for DDA in (R-74-77& 80) Mr.MohinderSinghCharak,Advocate(R-63 and 112) For orderssee LA.App.No.115/2011,titledas JaiPrakashvs. UnionofIndia &Anr. FEBRUARY 01,2012 pkb «L GAUR) 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. > > % 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 PRAKASH Through: Appellant Mr.B.S.Maan, Mr.Amit Maan, Mr.R.S.Verma, Mr.Jai Prakash, Ms.Smita Maan and MrJitin 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, Mr.B.K.Routray, Mr.Vinay Kumar, Advocates in (R-84 to 86, 88-102, 104) Mr.S.K.Routand Mr.B.K.Routray,Advocates (in R-74 and for respondent on R-79) versus UNIONOF INDIA& ANR. Respondents Through: Mr.Sanjay Poddar, Senior Advocate with Mr.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.BanlceyBihari Sharma, Ms.Amita Singh, Mr.S.K.Sethi and Mr.Kunal Sharma, Advocates for DDA in (R-74-77 & 80) Mr.MohinderSinghCharak,Advocate(R-63 and 112) LA. APR 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. 20/2011 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 I.A.App.No. 115/2011 & connectedAppealsofVillageBamnoli I I B' W'- i6'- aji!. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. r.A.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 358/2011 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 LA.APP. 133/2011 LA.APP. 166/2011 LA.APP. 168/2011 LA.APP. 170/2011 LA.APP. 172/2011 LA.APP. 173/2011 LA.APP. 175/2011 LA.APP. 176/2011 LA.APP. 179/2011 LA.APP. 183/2011 LA.APP. 187/2011 LA.APP. 189/2011 LA.APP. 193/2011 LA.APP. 194/2011 LA.APP. 205/2011 LA.APP. 206/2011 LA.APP. 208/2011 LA.APP. 209/2011 LA.APP. 211/2011 LA.APP. 260/2011 LA.APP. 264/2011 LA.APP. 266/2011 LA.APP. 276/2011 LA.APP. 286/2011 LA.APP.295/2011 LA.APP. 303/2011 LA.APP.305/2011 LA.APP.306/2011 LA.APP.308/2011 LA.APP.309/2011 LA.APP. 311/2011 LA.APP. 312/2011 LA.APP. 314/2011 LA.APP. 315/2011 LA.APP.317/2011 LA.APP.318/2011 LA.APP. 320/2011 LA.APP. 321/2011 LA.APP. 352/2011 LA.APP. 354/2011 LA.APP.356/2011 LA.APP.357/2011 LA.APP. 359/2011 LA.APP. 363/2011 LA.APP.490/2011 LA.APP.491/2011 LA.APP.493/2011 LA.APP.494/2011 LA.APP.497/2011 LA.APP. 498/2011 LA.APP.501/2011 LA.APP.502/2011 LA.APP.504/2011 (trA.AI?r505/2011 LA.APP.507/2011 LA.APP.512/2011 LA.APP.524/2011 LA.APP.533/2011 LA.APP.574/2011 LA.APP.575/2011 LA.APP.577/2011 LA.APP.590/2011 LA.APP. 645/2011 LA.APP. 638/2011 LA.App.278/2011 LA.App.279/2011 LA.App.281/2011 LA.App.282/2011 LA.App.284/2011 LA.App.285/2011 LA.App.288/2011 LA.APP. 184/2011& C.M.No. 10953/2011 (Cross-objection) (Relatingto NotificationNo.9(50)/2004/L&B/LA/13211of 04.11.2004 Section4ofthe Land AcquisitionAct, 1894& AwardNo. 1/2007-2008of06.08.2008,VillageBamnoli,NewDelhi) -A.App.No. 115/2011&connectedAppealsofVillageBamnoli % CORAM: HON'BLEMR. JUSTICESUNILGAUR ORDER

01.02.2012

¶1Abovecaptionedappealsand cross-objectionsrelateto acquisition of about 2100 bighas of land in Village Bamnoli, Delhi notified for PlannedDevelopmentofDelhi videNotificationof4"> November,2004 underthe LandAcquisitionAct, 1894 and since the impugnedorderof the ReferenceCourt in these appealsuniformlygrantscompensationat the rate of?17,45,000 acre with statutorybenefits,therefore,with the consentof learned counselfor the parties,who were presem at the final hearing, these matters were heard together and are being adjudicatedupon by this commonorder.

¶2LandAcquisitionCollectorwhilerelyinguponthe indicativeprice fixed by GovernmentofNCT ofDelhi for agriculturalland in Delhi for the periodmquestion,had determinedthe marketvalueofthe acquired land mquestionat the aforesaidrate of?15,70,000/-acreofleveled land in Block A, whereas for the acquiredland excavatedbeyond one meter, i.e.. Block Bland, compensationwas determinedat the rate of ?14,13,000/-per acre.

¶3Not satisfied with the aforesaid Award of Land Acquisition Collector,before the ReferenceCourt, appellants/claimantshad relied upon Notification of 24'" October, 1994 issued by the Municipal Corporationof Delhi declaring the land in 20 villages includingthe instant village to be urbanized. Reliance was also placed upon Notificationof I6"' October,2000 declaringchange of land use of the acquiredland in questionand thereupon,Delhi DevelopmentAuthority had preparedZonalDevelopmentPlan for DwarkaSub City in Dwarka, -A.App.No. 115/201]&connectedAppealsofVillageBamnoli" 3 ,5 New Delhi.

¶4While relying upon seven sale instances(Ex.PW-1/7to Ex.PW-1/13)ofthe year 1999,relatingto agriculturalland in 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 effect that location,potentialand utilityof the land mthe VillagesofBharthal,Pochanpurand Bamnoliis similarand had chosen not to rely upon the aforesaid sale instances as the Sale instanceofthis very villagewas available.

¶5In the absence of the evidence of the Vendor/Vendeeof the aforesaid sale instances,Reference Court had discarded the aforesaid sale instancesreliedupon by the appellants/claimants,whileadvertingto paragraphno: 29 ofthe Apex Courtdecisionin Lai Chandvs. Unionof India and Anr., (2009) 15 SCC 769. Before dealing with the sale instances(Ex.R-Iand Ex.R-II)ofVillageBamnoli,ReferenceCourthad refused to apply Delhi DevelopmentAuthority auction rate for the commercialplots or the scheduleof market rates for Vasant Vihar by placing implicitreliance upon the Apex Court decision in La/ 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 fortify the aforesaidfinding. ReferenceCourt has extensively quotedthe passagesfrom the Apex Courtdecisionin Lai Chand(supra) and thereafter,had proceededto discardheavilyreliedupon instanceof allotmentof 14.5 acres of the acquired land by-Delhi Development Authorityto the PowerDepartmentofGovernmentofNCT ofDelhifor l-A.App.No. ]15/201]&connectedAppealsofVillageBamnoli [€> constructionof 715 Mega Watt Gas Based Power Plant/Project,while holding as under:- "77. The allotmentof1.5 hectareoflandfor apremiumof 1297.42 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 questionwithoutpermissionofDDA in view ofSection 12 of the Delhi Development Act, 1957 determination of premiumfor allotmentofland in developmentarea isnotan ordinarysale betweenaprudentbuyerandseller.Premium of land in such an allotmentcannot be called the market price of land which a prospectivebuyer of similar land sittingin his armchairwouldbe willingtopay.

¶78Moreover,there is a timegap ofthreeyears between date of Notificationunder Section 4 of LA 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 considerationfor determiningmarket value on the date of NotificationunderSection 4. As per Section24 ofLA Act, the Courtshall not take into considerationany increaseto the value ofthe landacquiredlikely to accruefrom the use to which it will beput when required."

¶7On the aspectofthe acquiredland beingdeclaredurbanizedand of being in the developmentzone, the pertinentfindings returned by the Reference Court are as under:- "94. Landofpetitioneris agriculturallandalthoughit is in urbanized area and in developmentzone. The land continued to be agriculturalland even till issuance of Notificationunder Section 4 of LA Act in the year 2004 would 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 would negatepossibilityofland in questionhaving potentialfor buildingsiteeven in nearfuture.

¶95The petitionerhas broughtno evidence, leave aside documentaryevidencethat the acquiredland was suitable LA.App.No. 115/20]]&connectedAppealsofVillageBamnoli Page5of15 f/ for puttingup buildings,he they residentialor commercial or industrialas the case may be. There is no building activitystartedon the landin questioneven afterpassingof ci d£ca.desince a.reawas urbanized."

¶8On the question of potentialityof the acquired land, Reference Courthas talcennote ofthe fact that this acquiredland is surroundedon all four sides by Villages-Bharthal,Bijwasan,Pochanpurand Dhul Siras. Noticingthat acquired land is in the vicinityof Dwarka, where DDA is developingcoloniesand therefore,adoption of the minimum ratesfor agriculturalland fixedby the GovernmentofDelhiby the Land AcquisitionCollectorwas not justified.Upon consideringthe two sale instancesof25'>' October,2004 (Ex.R-I)and of20"- April,2004(Ex.R-2) ofthis very village.ReferenceCourthad discardedthe sale instance a«.R-2) as sale considerationof ?9,02,496per acre was found to be depressed and had chosen to rely upon the sale instance (Ex.R-1) depicting sale considerationof ?17,45,108 which was found to be comparable.'

¶9In the instantappeals,it was vehementlyurged on behalfof the appellantsthat the effectofNotificationof24"' October, 1994 declaring the acquired lands being fit for urbanizationand Notificationof 16"' I October,2000regardingthe changeoflanduse undertheMasterPlanof Delhi has not been consideredby the ReferenceCourtto appreciatethe ime potentialofthe acquiredland.Reliancewasplacedupondecisionof the Apex Court in SpecialLandAcquisitionOfficer&Anr xs. M.K. RaflcSaheb,(2011)7SCO 714, by learnedcounselfor theappellants'to contend that in view of the aforesaidNotifications,the acquired land cannotbe treatedas an agriculturalland for determinationofits market value.

¶10Aforesaidcontentionis noticedfor beingoutrightlyrejectedas the LA.App,No. 115/201)&connectedAppealsofVillageBaninoli ^ ,5 acquiredlands may not to be termed as agriculturalland but they were certainlyundeveloped.Govemment'sminimumrates for the agricultural land applicableto Delhi have been rightly discardedby the Reference Court. So, reliance placed upon M.K. Rafiq Saheb (supra), is clearly misplaced,as the ReferenceCourt has determinedthe market value of •the acquiredlandwhilerelyinguponasale exemplarofthisveryvillage.

¶11There is no questionof discardingthe aforesaidNotifications.In fact, inspiteof the aforesaidNotificationsno developmentactivitywas there on the acquiredlands as no permissionwas soughtby the owners ofthe acquiredlands underDelhiDevelopmentAct and therefore,it can be safely concludedthat the acquiredlands were undevelopedand the same could not be comparedwith developedlands for determiningthe marketvalue of the acquiredland. Thus, relianceplacedby appellant's counselupon UdhoDass vs. StateofHaryana&Ors., 2010 (9) SCALE 41 is of no avail.

¶12Rejection 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 fully comparable with the aforesaid land and is in proximity and therefore,the marketvalueofthe acquiredlandoughtto have been fixed with referenceto the auctionrates ofthe Delhi DevelopmentAuthority. ReferenceCourthas not only reliedupon the decisionofApex Courtin Lai Chand vs. Union ofIndia and Anr., (2009) 15 SCC 769 but has extensively quoted relevant passages therefrom to hold that the sale considerationof the developedlands cannot be appliedto the acquired lands which are undisputedlyundeveloped. At the hearing in these appeals, learned counsel for the appellant could not distinguish the decisionof the Apex Court in Lai Chand(supra),whose ratio squarely .A.App.No, 115/201!&connectedAppealsofVillageBamnoli Page7of15 /J appliesto the instantoases. Ti^erefore,Ifind that the ReferenceCom as nghtl,refusedto apptyDelhi DeveloprnentAuthorityauctionrates for determiningthemarketvalueofthe acquiredland.

¶13Whilereiteratingthe well settledprincipleoflawthatcomparable sale tnstances.are the best piece of evidenceto be consideredby the rt for the purposeofdeterminmgthe compensation,Apex Court in .sre«nt decisionin Rama MudallyarVs. SpecialTahsiUar(Land Ac>,ms,u"n TamU Nadu Housing Board) (2010) ,3 SCC 384 has observed as under-- genuine transaction; (2) the 2 ^ f erpnjtor! have been notification hy the salp mu^t covered comparableto the acquired land Thp ^ni shouldpreferablybe cLestinZt/, f KanwarSinghvs. UnionofIndia."

¶14Fixationofthe marketvalue ofthe acquiredland on the basis of the sale instances(Ex.PW-,/7to Ex.PW-,/.4)ofthe adjoiningvillages as sought by the appellantsstands rightly rejected by the Reference Courtas the sale instancesofthis vety villageare available.When it is •so then there is no need to look for the sale instancesofthe adjoining Villages. ^

¶13On the aforesaidreasoning,adoptionofthe L&DOratesto fix the marketvalueofthe acquiredlandssoughtby the appellantsis outrightly rejected. Appellants'counsel had relied upon decision of the Apex t-A.App.No. 115/2011&connectedAppealsofVillageBamnoli Court in Kiran Tandon vs. AllahabadDevelopmentAuthority,(2004) 10 see 745 and in Valliyammal and Anr vs. Special Tehsildar (Land Acquisition) and Am., AIR 2011 SC 2937 to assert that deduction of 40% towardsdevelopmentchargeswas improperand where large area, not fully developed, is acquired, normally, deduction of about 33% is permissible. The need to look for sale instances in the vicinity is obviatedin view 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 instance (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 Power DepartmentofDelhi Governmenton leaseholdbasis at a consideration of ^297.42 lacs per acre with 2.5% annual ground rent to claim enhancementof compensationat the rate of ^^40 lacsper acre over and abovethe marketvalue fixed by the ReferenceCourtas the allotmentof the aforesaidland was out ofthe acquiredland. With much vehemence, It was assertedby learned counsel for the appellantsthat the aforesaid allotment is clearly comparable and therefore, on its basis the compensationought to be enhancedwhile treatingthe acquiredland to be at par with the aforesaid land allotted to Power Department of Government of Delhi.

¶17To meet the aforesaidstand of the appellants,it was pointed out by learned senior counsel for the Respondentsthat aforesaidallotment by Delhi DevelopmentAuthorityto Power Departmentof Government -A.App.No. 115/2011&connectedAppealsofVillageBamnoll of Delhi was made in November, 2007 and the possession of the aforesaidland was handedoverto the PowerDepartmentof Government ofDelhi in Febmary,2008 and the acquisitionofthe land in questionis of November, 2004 and.during the interveningperiod land rates had steadilyincreasedand therefore,aforesaidallotmentcannotbe made the basis to determine the market value of the acquired land as the interveninggap is of threeyears.

¶18The factors to be consideredto determinethe market value of the acquiredlands as reiteratedby the Apex Courtin GeneralManager,Oil and Natural Gas CorporationLtd vs. RameshbhaiJivanbhai Patel and Am, (2008) 14 SCC 745, are as under:- Pyiyyiarily, the increase in land prices depends on fourfactors:situationofthe land, natureofdevelopmentin surroundingarea, availabilityof landfor developmentin the area, and the demandfor land in the area. In rural areas, unless there is any prospectof developmentin the vicinity, increase in prices would be slow, steady and gradual, withoutany suddenspurtsorjumps. On the other hand, in urbanor semi-urbanareas, wherethe development ISfaster, wherethe demandfor landis high andwherethere is construction activity all around, the escalation in market price is at a much higherrate, as comparedto rural areas. 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.

¶14On the other extreme, in remote rural areas where there was no chance of any developmentand hardly any buyers, thepricesstagnatedforyearsor rose marginallyat a nominal rate of 1% or 2% per annum. There is thus a significantdifferencein increasesin marketvalue oflands in urban/semi-urbanareasandincreasesin marketvalueof lands in the ruralareas. Therefore,ifthe increasein market value in urban/semi-urbanareas is about 10% to 15%per annum, the correspondingincreasesin rural areas wouldat l-A.App.No. 115/2011&connectedAppealsofVillageBamnoli Page ,o of15 best be only aroundhalfofit, that is about5% to 7.5%per annum. This rule ofthumb refersto the general trendin the nineties, to be adoptedin the absenceofclearandspecific evidence relating to increase in prices. Where there are specialreasonsfor applyinga higher rate ofincrease, or any specific evidence relating to the actual increase in prices, then the increaseto be applied^woulddependupon the same.

¶15Normally, recourse is taken to the mode of determining the market value by providing appropriate escalationover theprovedmarketvalueofnearbylands in previous years (as evidenced by .sale transactions or acquisitions), where there is no evidence of any contemporaneous sale transactions or acquisitions of comparablelands in the neighbourhoodThe saidmethodis reasonably safe where the relied-on sale transactions/ acquisitionsprecede the subjectacquisitionby only afew years, that is uptofour tofiveyears. Beyondthat it may be unsafe, even ifit relatesto 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 land acquired in 1992, adopting the annual increase methodwith referenceto a sale or acquisitionin 1970 or 1980 may have many pitfalls. This is because, over the course ofyears, the "rate" ofannual increase may itself undergo drastic change apart from the likelihood of occurrenceof varyingperiods ofstagnation in prices or sudden spurts in prices affecting the very standard of increase. "

¶19Being mindful of the ratio of the decisionof the Apex Court in ONGC (supra), I find that the instance of institutional allotment (BX.PW13/1)of the year 2007 heavily relied upon by the appellants wouldnot be ausefulguideto determinethe marketvalueofthe land in question,as the said allotmentwas made after aperiod of three years from the date ofacquisitionofthe land in question.It is so saidbecause the sale exemplarofthe relevantperiodofthisveryvillagein questionis L-A.App.No. 115/2011& connectedAppealsofVillageBamnoli available. Therefore, the aforesaid instance of allotment of land to the Power Department of Government of Delhi has been rightly rejected by the Reference Court.

¶20Now what is required to be considered is whether the sale instance (bx.R-l) reliedupon by the ReferenceCourtis a comparableinstanceor riot. Undisputedly,sale instance(Ex,R-l)is ofthis very villageand is of October, 2004 whereas the land in question was acquired vide Notification of November, 2004. Evidently, aforesaid sale instance (Ex.R-1)is not only relevantbut is comparableas it has not been shown by the appellantsas to what are the distinguishingfeatureswhich would make it inapplicableto determinethe marketvalueofthe acquiredlands. Findingof the ReferenceCourtthat when the sale instance(Ex.R-1)was exhibitedno objectionwas raisedby the claimantsand aspersection51-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 unimpeachable.

¶21However,to meet the aforesaidfindingof the ReferenceCourt, it was submittedby learnedcounsel for the appellantsthat opportunityto lead rebuttalevidenceto show that sale instance(Ex.R-1)is not reliable or bona fide, an applicationto lead rebuttalevidencewas filed beforethe ReferenceCourt which was illegallyrejectedvide order of 25'*" August, 2010 and therefore, this matter needs to be remanded back to the Reference Court to enable the appellantsto lead rebuttal evidence to demolishaforesaidsale instance(Ex.R-1).

¶22First of all, appellantsought to have objectedto the exhibitionof aforesaidsale instance(Ex.R-1).Havingnot done so, appellantshave to face the legal consequences. Secondly, even if application of the LA.App,No. 115/2011&connectedAppealsofVillageBamnoii Page 12 of15 appellantsfor leadingrebuttalevidencewas rejectedby the Reference Court,nothinghad stoppedthem from movingan applicationfor leading additionalevidencein the appeal to lead evidencein order to demolish the sale instance (Ex.R-l). Not only this, even during the course of hearing,nothingwas urgedto showas to howthe saleinstance(Ex.R-I) IS not genuine/reliableor comparable.

¶23In the light of the evidence on record,Iam of the considered opinionthattheReferenceCourthasrightlyrelieduponthe sale instance (bx.R-I)to determinethe marketvalueoftheacquiredlands.Findingno merit in the instantappealsofclaimantsand cross-objectionby one of them, the sameare dismissedwhileleavingthe partiesto beartheirown costs.

¶24So far as appeals of the Respondentsare concerned,Ifind no SU stancemthem, becausethe determinationofthe marketvalueofthe acquiredland by the ReferenceCourthas been donewhilerelyingupon instance (Ex.R-i) produced by the Respondentsthemselves Regardingdoingawayofthe classificationofthe acquiredland into "A" block and -B' Blockby the ReferenceCourt is concerned,Ifind that this classificationhasareasonablebasis. That is to say, land with top soiland the landwithouttop soilcannotbe putatparas themarketvalue ofteland withouttop soilis boundto be lesserthanthemarketvalueof the land with top soil.

¶25Endorsingthepricedifferentiationbetween'A' categoiylandand Bcategoo' land, my esteemed brother Pradeep Nandrajog,J in a recentdecisionin LA.App.No.266/2008,titledas JaiSingh&Ors vs mon ofMia&Ors.. renderedon 23-August2011,whilerelyingon e ecsion of the Division Bench of this court in GajrajSingh vs. Vmo"ofIndia.2006(VI)AD Delhi 13,has heldas under:- >.A.App.n"."5/20n&co""ec»dAppea,s"fVi,lageBa™"",i

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

¶57/ thus hold that Gajraj Singh's case should be my guiding star for price differentialin the instant cases as well and thus1holdthat whereverCategory A', Category B and Category 'C have to be differentiatedonprice, the differential should be 2.5%. "

¶26Consequentially,the findingofthe ReferenceCourtregardingthe A categoryand 'B' categoryland beingsimilarlysituatedhavingsame potentialityand becausethey are acquiredfor the same publicpurpose, cannotbe sustainedin the lightof the aforesaidobservations.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 reliedupon the sale instance(Ex.R-1),merits rejection.

¶27In viewofthe,afore-goingnarration,Ifind tliatno 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 the Reference Court for the 'B' categoiyof lands (as noticed in the Award of the Land Acquisition Collector)is reducedfrom?17,45,000peracreto ?17,01,375/-;,<.^acre.

¶28Beforepartingthis order,Iwould like to bring on recordthat the brevity of this order is occasioned by the fact that the impugned judgment is well consideredon facts and the law. Therefore,I have I.A.App.No.115/2011&connMedAppealsofVillageBamnoli PageHoflS puiposefoilynot adverted to the entire evidence on record and the relevant evidence, i.e. of the sale exemplars has been taken into considerationby me in this order.

¶29The abovecaptionedappealsand cross-objectionare disposedof W,t directionto the Registo^to remitthe compensationamotmt,ifany depositedby eitherside with the RegistrarGeneralofthis Court,to the concerned Reference Court. JNIL GAUR) February01, 2012 JUDGE pl<b/rs VApp,N",n5,2"n^«dAppea."fVi".geB.."",i

% % IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI LA.APP. 505/2011 RAJESH KUMAR Tlirough: versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR Through: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR