Union of India v. Rajesh Kumar & Anr

ORDER

01.02.2012 Fororderssee LA.App.No.115/2011,titledasJai Prakash v^'. UnionofIndia &Anr. FEBRUARY 01, 2012 pkb ?IL 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. % -4-i > IN THE -HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI . Reserved on: January 12, 2011 Pronounced on: Februai\> 01, 2012 LA.APP. 115/2011(VILLAGEBAMNOLI) JAl PRAKA UNION OF SH Appellant , Through: Mr.B.S.Maan,Mr.Amit Maan, Mr.R.S.Vernia, Mr.JaiPrakash,Ms.SmitaMaanajndMr.Jitin' Tewathia. Advocates (R-14-1,6,22, 30, 34,38- •45,51-53) ' I Mr.Mohinder Singh Charak, Advocate for appellant in R-112 and respondent in,R-63 ^ M'.B.D.Sharma,Mr.S.K.Rout, ; Mr.B.K.Routray, Mr.Vinay Kumar, Advocates . , in(R-84to 86, 88-102, 104) Mr.S.K.Routand Mr.B.K.Routray,Advocates (in R-74 and for respondenton R-79) | versus ' i NDIA & ANR. ..... Respondents Through: Mr.Sanjay Poddar, Senior Advocate Vvith Mr.Sanjay Pathak, Ms.Navlin Swain, Ms.IC.K-Kiranand Mr.S.N.Pandey,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, Advocates for DDA in rR-74-77 & ' 80) ^ : Mr.MohinderSinghCharak,Advocate(R-63I and 112) . . ; : AND LA.APP. 16/2011 LA.APP. 19/2011 LA.APP. 22/2011 LA.APP. 90/2011 LA.APP. 93/2011 LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. 17/2011 20/2011 23/2011 91/2011 94/2011 LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA;AF'P. I.A.APP. LA.ApR.No. 115/2011& connectedAppealsofVillageBamnoli i8/2qii; 21/2011 24/2011 92/2011 95/2011 Page I of 15 I I''-' ii'.-' y.'' fi • (• t'-w ' II-U Kr <•', •• r.C I , > ;

1.6 la:app. LA.APP. LA-APP. I4.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. (TlA7App! H 5/2011 7/2011 1/2011 4/2011 178/^011 186/2011 19,2/2011 204/2011 207/2011 210/2011 263/2011 5/2011 3/2011 304/2011 7/2011 3/2011 313/2011 316/2011 319/2011 325/2011 355/2011 358/2011 364/2011 492/2011 495/2011 /2011 /2011 50d/2011 /2011 /2011 '2011 592/2011 287/2011 LA.APP. 133/2011 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. 168/2011 172/2011 175/2011 179/2011 187/2011 ,193/2011 i05/2011 208/2011 211/2011 .264/2011 .276/2011 . 295/2011 . 305/2011 ,308/2011 311/2011 31'4/2011 317/2011 " 320/2011 352/2011 356/2011

35.9/2011 490/2011 493/2011 497/2011 . 501/2011 . 504/2011 . 507/2011 .524/2011 .,57,4/2011 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.AP:P. 176/2011 LA.i^JPP. 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.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.27^/2011 LA.App. 282/2011 LA.App. 285/2011 LA.APP. 184/2011 & C.M.No. 10953/2011 (Cross-objection) (Relating to issued under 5 1/2007-2008 c NotificationNo.9(50)/2004/L&B/LA/13211of 04.11.2004 Section4ofthe LandAcquisitiofiAct, 1894& AwardN6. f06.08.2008,VillageBamnoli,NewDelhi) •LA.App,No. ]15/2011&connectedAppealsofVillageBamnoli > % CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL' GAUR ORDER

01.02.2012 e captionedappealsand cross-objectionsrelateto'acquisition 00 bighas of land in Village.Bamnoli, Delhi notified for PlannedDevelopmentofDelhi vide Notificationof.4''' November,2004 and AcquisitionAct, 1894 Sind since the impugnedorder of ;e Court in these appeals uniformlygrants compensationat

¶1Abov of about under the L .the Referen -the rate of fl7,45,000per acre with.statutorybenefits,therefore,with the consentoflearned counsel for the partieSj who were presentat Ithe .final hearing, these matters were heard togethqr and are being adjudicated

¶2Land meter, i.e.. upon by this common order. AcquisitioinCollectorwhilerelyinguponthe indicativeprice fixed by GovernmentofNCT ofDelhi for agriculturalland in Delhi for the periodhi question,had determinedthe marketvalue ofthe acquired land in questionat the aforesaidrate of?15,70,000/-acre ofleveled land in Block A, whereas for the acquiredland excavatedbeyond one Block B land, compensationwas determinedat the rate of ^14,13,000/-j7eracre.

¶3Not satisfied with the aforesaid Aiward of Land Acquisition Collector,bufore the Reference Court, appellants/claiihantshad relied upon Notifi Corporation instant vill: Notification cation of 24"' October, 1994 issued by the Municipal of Delhi declaring the land in 20 villages including the ge to be urbanized;,.Reliance was also placed upon of 16'^ October,2000 declaringchange of land use of the acquiredland in questionand thereupon,Delhi DevelopmentAuthority had preparedZonalDevelopmentPlan for DwarkaSub.Cityin Dwarlca, ;• LA.App.No. ]15/2011&connectedAppealsofVillage,Bamnoli Pages of 15 New Delhi.

¶4While relying upon seven sale instances(Ex.PW-l/Tto Ex.PW-1/13)ofthe year 1999,relatingto agriculturalland in VillagePochanpur purchased l^y a religious society-Radha Swami Satmng, 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 ofthe land in the had chosen instance of 5, In th Villagesof Bharthal,Pochanpurand Bamnoliis similarand not to rely upon the aforesaid sale instances as the Sale this very village was available. I I .(? absence of the evidence of the Vendor/Vendeeof the aforesaidsale instances,Reference Court had discardedthe aforesaid sale instancesrelipdupon by the appellants/claimants,whileadvertingto parag^h.no:29 ofthe Apex Courtdecisionin Lai Chandvs. Unionof India and Anr,, (2009) 15 SCC. 769. Before dealing with the sale ^ instances^(E:c.R-I and Ex.R-II)ofVillageBamnoli,ReferenceCourthad refused to apply Delhi DevelopmentAuthority auction rate for the commercial placing imp (supra) to h plots or the scheduleof marketrates'forVasant Vihar by icit relianceupon the Apex Court decision in Lai Chand old that market price for the developed land cannot:be applied while deteraiining the market price of the undeveloped agriculturallandin Delhi. ^ I tify the aforesaidfinding, ReferenceCourt has extensively

¶6To for quotedthe passagesfromthe Apex CourtdecisionmLalChand(supra) and thereafte allotment, of •, had proceededto discardheavilyreliedupon'instancekf

14.5 acres of the acquired land by Delhi Deyelopmeit Authorityto lie PowerDepartmentofGovernmentofNCT ofbelhifir ' i LA.A|p.No. 115/20]1& connectedAppealsofVillageBaipnoli t', ' ^ , / constmctio: holding as n of 715 Mega Watt Gas Based Power Plant/Project,while mder:- ' ,

¶7On the being in the Reference C ' "94. "77; ^297 Buye devel quest of th prem

¶75• . date

04.11 Marke\ under consiUi Notifi the the to whi 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,placeon the\landin ion withoutpermissionofDDA in view ofSection 12 e Delhi Development Act, 1957 determination of mmfor allotmentoflandin developmentarea isnotan ordinarysale betweenaprudentbuykrandseller.Premium of land in such an allotmentcannot be called the market price'of land which a prospectivebuyer of similar land sittingin his armchairwouldbe willingtopay. Moreover,there is a time gap ofthreeyears between ofNotificationunder Section 4 of LA Act which is 2004 and date of allotment which is 25.11.2007. '•t price of land allottedafter 3 years,ofNotification Section 4 of LA ' Act cannot be taken into lerationfor determiningmarketvalue pn the date of zation underSection4. As per Section24 ofLA Act, 'urtshallnot take into considerationany increaseto ue ofthe landacquiredlikelyto accruefrom the use ch it willbeput when required." i Co val: contin Notific would having

¶95docum aspectofthe-acqiiiredland beingdeclaredurbanizedand of developmentzone, the pertinentfindings returnedby the Durt are as under Landofpetitioneris agriculturalland,althoughit is in urbanized area and in developmentzone. The land r-nriHnued to be agriculturalland even till issuance of :ation under Section.4, ofLA Act in the-year2004 show that in spite of being in capital of country _ explosive population, no residential colony approvedor unapprovedcame up on the land in question and It wouldnegatepossibilityofland in questionhaving potentialfor buildingsiteeven in nearfuture. 7ze petitionerhas broughtno evidence, leave aside '.entaryevidencethat the Acquiredland was suitable M'-App,No, 115/201]&connectedAppealsofVillageBamnoli i; , i • i • LA forpt tting up buildings, be,the^residentialor commercial or industrialas the case may be. "There is no building activitystartedon the landin questioneven afterpassingof a decc " "

¶8. On .th ide since area was urbanized. " question of potentialityof the acquired land, Refererice / Courthas tacennote ofthe fact that this acquiredland is sun-oundedon s by Villages-Bharthal, Bijwasan, Pochanpur;and Dhul ng that acquiredland' is. in the vicinityof Dwarka, where eloping colonies and therefore,adoption of the minimum lates for agriculturallandfixedby the GovernmentofDelhi by the Land Acquisition(^ollectorwas not justified.Upon consideringthe two sale instancesof 25^'^ October,2004 (Ex.R-1)and of20"^,April, 2004 (Ex.R- . 2) of this very village,ReferenceCourt had discardedthe sale instance (Ex.R-2) as sale considerationof ?9,02,496>eracre was found to be depressed ar.d had chosen to rely upon the sale instance (Ex.R-1) depicting pale considerationof ?17,45"108 which was found to be comparable.' ' ' i instantappeals, it was vehemeiitlyurged on behalfof the =tthe effectofNotification,of24''^ 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 the Apex Coirt in SpecialLandAcquisitionOfficer& Am vs. M.K. RafiqSaheb, [2011)7SCC 714, by learnedcounselfor the appellantsto contendthat in view of the aforesaid-Notifications,,the acquired lan<^ cannotbe treatedas an agriculturalland for determinationofits market value. I • I :10. AforesaUcontentionis noticedfor beingoutrightlyrejectedastl,i all four side • -Siras. Notici DDA is dev

¶9In the appellants th the acquired October, 200( .Delhi has not true potential •App.No. l 15/201] & COnnectedAppealsofVillageBaninoli acquiredlands may not to be termed as agriculturalland but they were I ' - certainlyundeveloped.Government'sminimumrates for the agricultural land applica ble to Delhi have been rightly discardedby the,Reference Court. So, relianceplaced upon M.K. Rafiq Saheb (supra), is clearly s the ReferenceCourt has determinedthe market V£ilue of landwhilerelyinguponasaleexemplarofthisveryvillage. misplaced, -the acquired

¶11There fact, inspite there on the is no questionof discardingthe aforesaidNotifications.In of the aforesaidNotificationsno developmentactivitywas acquiredlands as no permissionwas soughtby the owners ofthe acquirsdlandsunderDelhiDevelopmentActaiidtherefore,it can be safely concludedthat the acquiredlands were undevelopedand the same could not be comparedwith developedlands for determiningthe of the acquiredland. Thus, relianceplacedb/ appel.lan1;'s UdhoDass vs. StateofHaryana&Ors., 2010 (9) SCALE ail. market value counsel upon 41 is of no a-v

¶12Rejectionof auction rates of Delhi DevelopmentAuthority, in Sector 20 and 22 of Dwarka, by the ReferenceCourt, is assailed by learnedcounselfor the appellantsbycontendingthatthe acquiredlandis fully comparable with the aforesaid land and is in proximity an;d marketvalueofthe acquiredland oughtto have been fixed therefore, the •} with referenceto the auctionratesofthe DelhiDevelopmentAutliority. W has not onlyrelieduponthe decisionofApex:Courtin Lai Chandvj. Union ofIndia andAm,, (2009) 15 SCC 769 but has extensively q consideration ands which loted relevant passages therefrom to;,hold that!the sale of the developedlands cannot be appliedto the acquired are undisputedlyundeveloped. At the hearing in these appeals, learned counsel fbr the appellant could not distinguish decisionofthe Apex Courtin Lai Chand(supra),whoseratiosquarelj LA.App.No. 115/2011&comectedAppealsofVillageBamnoli Page? of 1.'5 )% applies to tl has rightly r for determin

¶13Wliile le instantcases. Therefore,I find that the ReferenceCourt sfusedto applyDelhidevelopmentAuthorityauctionrates ing the marketvalueofth^ acquiredland. j • reiteratingthe well settledprincipleoflaw that comparable sale instances,are the best piece of evidenceto be consideredby the Court for the purposeof determiningthe compensation,Apex Court|in Its recent decisionin RadhaMudaliyarVs. SpecialTaLildar(Land Requisition .observedas u Tamil Nadu Housing Board) (2010) 13 SCC 384 has nder:-

¶13Comparablesalesinstancesare thesafestmethodfor dplavyyiivmnrr 7_ . 7 ming the market value ofthe acquiredland and'as wn in ShajiKuriakosev. Indian Oil Corpn. Ltd it satisfy the factors, inter alia (1) the sale must be •.^transaction;(2) the sale deed must have been executedat the timeproximateto the date ofissuanceof notificationunderSection4oftheAct; (3) the landcovered by tlK salemust be in the vicinityoftHe acquiredland; (4) •• ^ theM coveredby thesalemustbe similartotheacquired and (5) sizeoftheplotofthelandcoveredby the sale ''^'=°mparableto theacquired land. The sales instances preferablybe closestfb the date ofnotificationas "^''ri^'orieIt wouldsatisfythe touchstineoftheprinciples : . contemplatedund,r Section 23 of the Act, as held in ,, . KanwarSinghvs. UnionofIndia." ! ; ' oftlif marketvalue ofthe acquiredland on the basis of / instances(Ex.PW-1/7to Ex:pW-1/14)ofthe adjoiningvillages] • as sought by the appellantsstands rightly rejected by the Reference Courtas tlie sale instancesofthis very villageare available.When it is' sno need to look for the sale instancesof the adjoining' determ laid dc should genuim so, then there villages.

¶15On the a parl^et value o Injected. Appe |H6. I]5/20]1& conii oresaidreasoning,adoptionofthe L&DOratesto fix the: 'the acquiredlandssoughtby the appellantsis outrightly| lants' counsel had relied upon decision ofjthe Apex lectedAppealsofVillageBamnoli Page8of15 . - / ,not fully de permissible, obviated in •are available the sale inst .sale instanc reference to is of no cons

¶16During had strongly of t297.42 enhancement above the ma the aforesaid Gourt in Kivan Tandon vs. AllahabadDevelopmentAuti 10 see 745 and in Valliyammaland Am vs. Special Tehsildar(Ldnd Acquisition) and Am., AIR 2011 SC. 2937 to assert that deduction of I 40% towards developmentchargeswas improperand where large area, /eloped, is acquired, normally, deduction of about 33% is The need to look for sale instances,in the vicinity is aew of the fact that the sale instancesof the instantvillage iority, (2004) 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 ;quence. the course of hearing, learned counsel for the appellants relied upon the instanceof allotmentof 14.5 hectares(37 acres approximately)by Delhi I)evelopmentAuthority to the Pow'er Departmentof Delhi Governmenton leaseholdbasis at a consideration ^ I lacs per acre with 2.5% annual ground rent to claim. • ! ofcompensationat the rate of^40 lacsper acre over arid rket value fixed by the ReferenceCourt as the allotmentof land was out ofthe acquiredland. With much vehemence It was assertedby learnedcounsel for the appellantsthat the aforesaid allotment is clearly comparable and therefore, on its basis tlie compensationoughtto be enhancedwhile treatingthe acqiiredland to be-at par w|th tlie aforesaid land allotted to Power Department of Governme^Qtof Delhi. '

¶17To me£tthe aforesaidstand of the appellants,it was pointedout by learnedseiiorcounsel for the Respondentsthat aforesaidallotment by Delhi DevelopmentAuthorityto.PowerDepartmentof Govemmeht LA.App.No, 115/201] & ccnnectedAppealsofVillageBamnoli I - I LA.App. of-Delhi was made in November, 2007 and the possession of the aforesaidlard was handedoverto the PowerDepartmentofGovernment ofDelhi in February,2008 andthe acquisitionofthe land in questionis of November, 2004 and during the interveningperiod land rates had steadilyincreasedand therefore,aforesaidallotmentcannotbe made the basis to de-;ermine the market value of the acquired land as the interveninggap is ofthreeyears.

¶18The factorsto be consideredto determinethe raarketvalue ofthe acquiredlands as reiteratedby the Apex Courtin GeneralManager,Oil Gas CorporationLtdvs. RameshbhaiJivanbhaiPateland 4 see 745, are as under:- and Natural Anr, (2008) "13. four fa surrou. hand, i isfaste is cons price is 'Primarily, the increase in land prices depends on ctors:situationofthe land, natureofdevelopmentin ading area, availabilityoflandfor devdopmentin the area, and the demandfor land in the area. In rural areas, unless there is any prospectofdevelopmentan the vicinity^ increase in prices would le slow, steady and gradual, withoutany suddenspurtsor-jumps. On the other —' 'n urbanor semi-urbanareas, wherethe development wherethe demandfor landis highandwherethere 'ructionactivityall around, the escalationin market at a much higherrate, as comparedto rural areas. nsomepocketsin big cities,due to rapiddevelopmentand high demand for land, the,escaiations in prices have touchedeven 30% to 50% or more per year, during the nineties. !

¶14On the other extreme, in remote rural areas where there M)as.. no chance ofany developmentand hardly any buyers,Shepricesstagnatedforyearsor rosemarginallyat a nornii^alrate of1<% or. 2%:per annum. There is thMs\ a . significantdifferencemincreasesin marketvalue oflands lands in value in annum, i/semi-urbanareasanilincreasesin marketvalue'of themralareas. Therefore,ifthe increasein market urban/semi-urbanareas is about10% to 15%per the correspondingincreasesin ruralareaswould'at No. I]5/20]l& connectedAppealsofVillageBamnoli Page 10 of IS \ y i best be only aroundhalfof4t, that is about5% to 7.5%^per annum. This rule ofthumb refers to thegeneral trend in the nineties, to be adoptedin the absenceof clear and specific evidence relating to increase in prices. Where there\are^ specialreasonsfor applyinga higher rate of increase, or any specific evidence relating to the actual increase in prices, then the increaseto,be appliedwoulddependupon the same.

¶15Normally, recourse is taken to the mode of determining the market value by providing appropriate escalationover theprovedmarketvalueofnearbylands in previous years . (as evidenced by sale transactions or acquisitions), where ' there is no evidence' (}f any conten^poraneous sale transactions-or acquisitions of comparable lands in the neighbourhood.The said methodis reasonably safe where the relied-on sale titansactions/ 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 underg ofyears, the "rate" ofannual increasemay itself o drastic change apart from the likelihood of occurr'enceof varyingperiods of stagnationin prices or sudden spurts in prices affecting the veiy standard of increase.

¶19Being ONGC (sup? nindful ofthe ratio ofthe decisionof'the Apex'Courtin a), I find that the instance of institutional allotment (Ex.PW13/1)|of the year 2007 heavily relied upon by the appellants wouldnot be |a usefLilguideto determinethe marketvalueofthe land in question, as the said allotmentwas made after a period of three years ofacquisitionofthe land in question.It is so said because 3larofthe relevantperiodofthin veryvillagein questionis from the date the sale exem LA.App.No. 113/2011& connectedAppealsofVillageBainnoli herefore,the aforesaidinstanceof allotmentof land to the irtmentofGoverpmentofDelhi has been rightlyrejectedby available. T Power Depe V the ReferenciieCourt.

¶20Now whatis requiredto be consideredis wliethertiiesaleinstance (Bx.R-1).rel|edupon by tiieReferenceCourtis acomparableinstanceor not. Undispiitedly,sale instance(Ex.R-1)is ofthis veiy villageand is of October, l&M whereas the land in qv'estion was acquired vide Notification!of November, 2004..; Evidently, aforesaid sale instance (Ex.R-1)IS ifotonlyrelevantbut is comparable'as it has not been shown by the appeljantsas to whatare thedistinguishingfeatureswhichwould makeit mapplicableto determinethe marketvalueofthe acquiredlands. : FindingoftljeReferenceCourtthatwhenthe saleinstance(Ex.R-1)wLs exhibitedno Objectionwasraisedby theclaimantsand as persectionsjl- .A-of Land\Acqumtion Act. 1894, a certified copy of aregistered documentis |acceptablein evidenceand since this documenthas been tenderedmeyidenceby the Respondents,the same can be read against them,remainsunimpeachable.. ; , 21. However,to meetthe aforesaidfindingofthe ReferenceCourt, it was submittedby learnedcounselfor the appellantsthat opportunity'to IM rebuttalevidenceto showthat sale instance(Ex.R-I)is not reliable or bonafide, sn applicationto leadrebuttalevidencewas filedbeforethl ReferenceCoprtwhichwas illegallyrejectedvide orderof25"; Angus:, 201,0 and therefore, this matter needs to be remanded bad to the ReferenceCo^ to enable the appellafeto lead rebuttal evidence to demolishaforesaidsaleinstance(Ex.R-I). I ,22. Firstofiall.appellantsoughtto halve objectedto^ the exhibitionof aforesaidsaleinstance(Ex.R,l).Havingnot done so,iappell4ntshave to face the legal consequences. Secondly, even if application'of the LA.App.No.Ii5/2011&connectedAppealsofVillageBamnoli ; appellantsfor leadingrebuttal,evidencewas rejected"by the Reference , Court,nothinghad stoppedthem from movingan application;for leading additionalevidencein the appeal to lead evidencemorder 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/reliableorcomparable.

¶23In the light of the evidence on record, I am of the considered opinionthatthe ReferenceCourthas rightlyrelieduponthe sale instance. (Ex.R-1)to determinethe marketvalueofthe acquiredlands.Findingno merit in the-instantappeals of claimantsand cross-objectionby one of - them, the same are dismissedwhile leavingthe partiesto beartheirown costs. , ' ' ' ,1^- , 24. So far. as appeals of the Respondentsare concerned,Ifind no • substancein:them,becausethe determinationofthe marketvalue ofthe acquiredland.bythe ReferenceCourthas been donewhilerelyingupon the sale instance (Ex.R-1) produced by the Respondentsthemselves. Regardingdomg away ofthe classificationofthe acquiredland into 'A' block and 'B' Block by the ReferenceCourt is concerned.Ifind that this classificationhas areasonablebasis.That is to say, land with top soilandthe landwithouttop soilcannotbe putatparas theUrketvalue ofthe landwithouttop soil is boundto be lesserthanthe marketvalueof the landwithtop soil.

¶25Endorsmgthepricedifferentiationbetween'A' categoryland and 'B' category land, my esteemedbrother Pradeep Nandrajog,J., in a recentdecisionin LA.App.No.266/2008.titledas JaiSingh1On. UnionofIndia&Ors., renderedon 23'" August20tl,whilerelyingon . the decision of the DivisionBench of this court in Gajmj Singh vs C/m««»//w«,2006(VI)ADDelhil3,^ i ; ^AApp.No. ]].5/201!&connectedAppealsofVillageBamnoli Page 13 of IS

¶26\

¶56In GajrajSingh'scase (supra), thepricedifferential worked out was t25,000/- per acre. I have noted , hereinabovethat the acquisition in Gajraj Singh's case pertainedto the date 15.11.1996.In GajrajSingh'scase the pricefor Category 'A 'landdeterminedwas t9,76,12lAper acre andfor Category 'B' land the price determined'was ^9,51,121/-per acre and the price differentialcomes to about 2.5% with reference•to the price of Category 'A' land.

¶57I thus hold that Gajraj Singh's case should be my guidingstarfor price differentialiru the instant cases as welland thusI holdthat whereverCategory.'A', Category BJ^ndCategory 'C have to be differentiatedonprice, the differentialshould be 2.5%." , Consequentially,the findingofthe Reference'Courtregardingthe 'A' categoiyand 'B' categorylandbeingsimilarlysituatedhavingsame potentiality^nd becausethey are acquiredfor the same pubhcpurpose, cannotbe sustainedin the lightofthe aforesaidobservations.However,' ^ the claim of the Union of India,,to seek adoption of the minimum indicative-priceof agriculturalland in Delhi while forgettingthat the Appellant-UOI itselfhas reliedupon the sale instaiice(Ex.R-1),merits rejection.

¶27In viewofthe,afore-goingnarration,Ifindthatno substancein the appeals filed by claimantsas well as in cross objectionof one of the , claimantsand the satne 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' , • category of lands (as noticed in the Award of the Land Acquisition Collector),s reduced peracreto ^nfiUmi-peracre.

¶28Beforepartingthis order,Iwould like to bringon recordthat the brevity of this order is occasioned by the fact that the impugned • '• '^""^deredon facts and the law. therefore;I have I.A.App,.No.115/2011&connectedAppealsofVillageBamnoli i purposefullynot 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. " i I

¶29The above captionedappealsand cross-objectionare disposedof with directionto the Registryto remk the compensationambunt,ifany, depositedby eitherside with the RegistrarGeneralofthis C^ourt,to the concerned Reference Court. February 01, 2012 •pkb/rs TL GAUJR) JUDGE No, 115/20n&connectedAppckofVill.g, :e Bamnoli A

* % + % IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI LA.APP. 287/2011 UNION OF INDIA Through: versus RAJESH KUMAR & ANR Through: Reserved on: January 12, 2012 Pronounced on: February 01. 2012 Appellant 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.Bankey Bihari Sharma, Ms.Amita Singh, Mr.S.K.Sethi and Mr.Kunal Sharma, Advocates for DDA in (R-74-77 & 80) Mr.Mohinder Singh Charak, Advocate (R-63 and 112) Respondent Mr.B.S.Maan, Mr.Amit Maan, Mr.R.S.Verma, Mr.Jai Prakash, Ms.Smita Maan and Mr.Jitin Tewathia, Advocates (R-14-16, 22, 30, 34, 38-45, 51-53) Mr.Mohinder Singh Charak, Advocate for appellant in R-112 and respondent in R-63 Mr.B.D.Sharma, Mr.S.K.Rout, Mr.B.K.Routray, Mr.Vinay Kumar, Advocates in (R-84 to 86, 88-102, 104) Mr.S.K.Rout and Mr.B.K.Routray, Advocates (in R-74 and for respondent on R-79) CORAM: HON'BLE MR. .lUSTICE SUNIL GAUR