Union of India v. Ram Kumar & Anr

ORDER

01.02.2012 For orders see LA.App. No. 115/2011, titled as Jai Prakash v^. Union ofIndia & 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. tI- •IN THE H :gh court of delhi at new delhi Reserved on: Janiiar\' 12, 2011 Pronounced on: February 01, 2012 LA.APP. 115/2011(VILLAGE BAMNOLI) |AI PRAKASH Appellant IThrough: Mr.B.S.Maan,Mr.AmitMaan,MrjR.S.Verma, MrJaiPrakash,Ms.SmitaMaanand Mr.Jitin| Tewathia, Advocates (R44-16, 22; 30,.34, 38-45,51-53) Mr.Mohinder Singh Charak, Advocate for ' appellant in 112 and respondent in R-63 Mi-.B.D.Sharma,Mr.S.K.Rout, ; Mr.B.K.Routray, Mr.Vinay Kumar, Advocates in (R-84 to 86, 88-102, 104) i Mr.S.K.RoutandMr.B.K.Routray,Advocates (in R-74 and forrespondenton R-79) versus vfDIA& ANR. Respondents hrough: Mr.Sanjay Poddar, Senior Advocate with Mr.Sanjay Pathak, Ms.Navlin Swain, Ms.K.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, I Ms.Amita Singh, Mr.S.K.Sethi and Mr.Kunal Sharma,Advocatesfor DDA in (R-74-77<& ' 80) I Mr.MohinderSinghCharak,Advocate(R-63' and 112) UMON OF I LA.APP. 16/2011 LA.APP. 19/2011 IIV.APP. 22/2011 Oil Oil Lj\.APP.90/2 LA.APP. 93/2 A N D LA.APP. 17/2011 LA.APP. 20/2011 LA.APP. 23/2011 LA.APP. 91/2011 LA.APP. 94/2011 LA;APP. 18/2011 LA.APP. 21/2011 LA.APP. 24/2011 LA.APP. 92/2011 LA.APP. 95/2011 );A,^pp.No. 115/2011& connectedAppealsofVillageBamnoli as •t''" li:-' Vi-Kri-.' :hJ LA. APP. 115/2011 LA.APP. 167/2011 LA-APP., 17 /2dll

14.APP.\lkl20\i LA. APP. 178/2011 LA,APP. 18^/2011 LA. APP. 192/2011 LA.APP. 204/2011 LA.APP. 207/2011 LA.APP. 210/2011 LA.APP. 263/2011 LA.APP. 273/2011 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 J.A.APP. 576/2011 LA.APP. 592/2011 |.A.App.196/ioil tA.App. 280/2011 LA.App.283/ioil LA.App. 287/2011 LA.APP. 133/2011 LA.APP. 168/2011 LA. APP. 172/2011 LA.APP. 175/2011 LA.APP. 179/2011 LA.APP. 187/2011 LA.APP. 193/2011 LA.APP. 205/2011 LA.APP. 208/2,011 LA.APP. 211/2011 LA.APP. 264/2011 LA.APP, 276/2011 LA.APP. 295/2011 LA.APP. 305/2011 LA.APP. 308/2011 LA.APP. 311/2011 LA.APP. 314/2011 LA.APP. 317/2011 LA.APP. 320/2011 LA.APP. 352/2011 LA.APP. 356/2011 LA.APP. 359/2011 LA.APP. 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.App. 288/2011 LA.APP. 166/2011 LA.APP. 170/2011 LA.APP. 173/2011 LA.APP. 176/2011 LA.APP. 183/2011 LA, APP. 189/2011 LA.APP; 194/2011 LA.APP. 206/2011 LA.APP. 209/2011 LA.APP. 260/2011 LA.APP. 266/2011 LA.APP. 286/2011 LA.APP. 303/2011 LA.APP. 306/2011 LA.APP. 309/2011 LA.APP. 312/2011 LA.APP. 315/2011 LA.APP. 318/2011 LA.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) (Helating to N _ otificationNo.9(50)/2004/L&B/LA/13211of 04 11 2004 AwardNd.

06.08.2008,VillageBamnoli,NewDelhi) 'LA.App.No. 115/2011&connectedAppealsofVillageBamnoli Page 2 of 15' % CORAM: HON'BLE SIR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR O R D E R

01.02.2012

¶1Above captionedappealsand cross-objectionsrelateto acquisition i )0 bighas of land in Village Bamnoli, Delhi notified!for elopmentof Delhi vide Notificationof 4^^ November,2004 i' under the LqndAcquisitionAct, 1894 and since the impugnedorder the Referenc of about Planned De\ ;e Court in these appeals uniformlygrants compensation the rate of ?17,45,000per acre with statutorybenefits,therefore,with the consentof learned counsel for the parties, who were presentat the final hearing, these matters were heard together and are bqing adjudicatedupon by this commonorder. j

¶2Land ^AcquisitionCollectorwhilerelyinguponthe indicativeprice of at /emment of NCT of Delhi for agricultural land in Delhi for I question,had determinedthe marketvalue of the acquired tion at the aforesaidrate of ^15,70,000/-per acre of leveled :k A, whereas for the acquiredland excavatedbeyond one llockBland, compensationwas determinedat the rate! |of •per acre., 3, Not satisfied with the aforesaid Award of Land Acquisition Collector,before the Reference Court, appellants/claimantshad relied •upon Notification of 24"' October, 1994 issued by the Municipal I • ^ I ! , Corporation|of Delhi declaring the land m 20 villages including the ' I instant village to be urbanized. Reliance was also placed uji)6n Notificationpf 16^'^ October,2000 declaringchange ofland use of the acquired land in questionand thereupon,Delhi DevelopmentAuthority • I ZonalDevelopmentPlan for DwarkaSub City in Dv^arka, fixed by Go^ the period m land in quest \ land in Bloc meter, i.e., E ^14,13,000/- had prepared ..A.App.No. ]15/2011& connectedAppealsofVillageBamnoli New Delhi.

¶4While relying upon seven sale instances(Ex.PW-1/7to Ex.PW-1/13)ofthe year 1999,relatingto agriculturallandin VillagePochanpur purchased by arehgious society-Radha Swami Satsang, Beas, aiid certifiedcopy of Sale Deed of 27*'' September,2004 (Ex.PW-1/14):of VillageBharthal,enhancementin compensationwas sought. Reference I Court upon evaluationof the evidence on record concludedthat,there was no evidenceto the effectthat location,potentialand utilityofthe land in the VillagesofBharthal,Pochanpurand Bamnoliis similar£ird had chosen not to rely upon the aforesaid sale instances as the Sa .• ! . • instanceofthis veryvillagewas ava^able. •

¶5In the absence of the evidence of the Vendor/Vendeeof tlie .. aforesaid salt! instances,Reference Court had discardedthe aforesaid sale instancesreliedupon by the appellants/claimants,whileadvertinglto •paragraph no: 29 ofthe Apex Courtdecisionin Lai Chandvs. Union\of •India and Anr., (2009) 15 SCC 769. Before dealing with the sal|e instances(Ex.R-Iand Ex.R-II)ofVillageBarnnoli,PLeferenceCourthad refused to apply Delhi Development;Authority auction rate for tjis commercialplots or the scheduleof market rates for Vasant Vihar by placmg implicitreliance upon the Apex Court decision in Lai Chand (supra) to hold that market price for the developed land cannot b^ applied while determining the market price of the undeveloped agricultural land in Delhi.

¶6To fortijfythe aforesaidfinding,ReferenceCourt has extensive!^ • I ' • quotedthe pas;sagesfrom the ApexCourtdecisionin Laioiand(suprL and thereafter,had proceededto discardheavilyreliedupon instanceof allotment of Authority to th .4.5 acres of the acquired land by Delhi Developmen; :e PowerDepartmentofGovernmentofNCT ofDelhi for ,LA.App.^o. 115/2011& connectedAppealsofVillageBamnoli Page 4 ofIS ir constmctio holding as n of 715 Mega Watt Gas Based Power Plant/Project,while under:- "77. ^29

78.- date

04.11 Mark under The allotmentof1.5 hectareoflandfor apremiumof ' '.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-indevelopmentarea is notan \ ordinarysale betweenaprudentbuyerandsdler. Premium ' of land in such an allotmentcannot be called the market * pricey of land which a prospectivebuyer of similar land sittingin his armchairwouldbe willingtopay. Moreover,there is a time gap ofthreeyears between of Notificationunder Section 4 of LA Act which is .2004 and date of allotment which is 25.11.2007. et price ofland allottedafter 3 years ofNotification Section 4 of LA Act cannot be taken into considerationfor determiningmarket value on the date of NotificationunderSection 4. As per Section24 ofLA Act, the C^urtshallnot take into cpnsiderationany increaseto the valueofthe landacquiredlikelyto accruefrom the use to which it willbeput when required."

¶7On the aspectofthe acquiredlandbeingdeclaredurbanized being in the developmentzone, the pertinentfindings returnedby| Reference C _- -94. ourt are as under:- ana I Landofpetitioneris agriculturallandalthoughit is. in urbanized area and in .developrnentzone-. The land continued to be agriculturalland even till issuance of Notificationunder Section 4 ofLA 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 buildingsite even in nearfuture. I I

¶95The petitionerhas broughtno evidence, leave aside documentaryevidencethat the acquiredland was suitable, LA.App.No. 115/2011& connectedAppealsofVillageBamnoli Page 5 of15 of he for puti or indv activity a decaa S. On the ing up buildings, be they residential or commercial strial as the case may be. There is no building stdrted on the land in questioneven afterpassing of ^ e since area yvas urbanized. " question of potentiality of the acquired land, Reference Court has taken note of the fact that this acquired land is surroundedoil I by Villages - Bharthal, Bijwasan, Pochanpur and Dhul all four sides Siras. Noticing that acquired land is in the vicinity of Dwarka, where ' , I oping, colonies and therefore, adoption of the minimum i ilturalland fixed by the GovernmentOfDelhi bythe Land ollectorwas not justified.Upon consideringthe two sale 5^'' October,2004 (Ex.R-1)and of 20^^' April, 2004 (Ex.R-2) of this ver}' village. Reference Court had discarded the sale instance (Ex.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 consideration of ?17,45,108 which was found to be comparable." . i

¶9In the instantappeals, it was vehementlyurged on behalfof the appellantsthat the effectofNotificationof24;^ October, 1994 deckiring the acquired lands being fit for urbanizationand Notificationof 16"| ' ' I regarding the change of land use under the Master Plan of been consideredby the ReferenceCourt to appreciatethe decision o DDA is deve' rates for agric' Acquisition C instances of 2 October, 2000 Delhi has not p-ue potentialofthe acquiredland. Reliancewas placedupon the Apex Coul in SpecialLandAcquisitionOfficer& Am vs. MJC RaflqSaheb,(^i2011)7SCC 714, by learnedcounselfor the appellantstcl 1 view of the aforesaidNotifications,the acquired land i :ed as an agriculturalland for determinationofits markel value. • I i

¶10Aforesaidcontentionis noticedfor beingoutrightlyrejectedas the contend that i ' cannot be trea '-A-App.No.115/201] &. connectedAppealsofVillageBarrinoli r . acquiredlands may not to be termed as agriculturalland but they'wer certainlyundeveloped.Government'sminimumrates for the agricultural e to Delhi have been rightly discarded by the ELeference iance placed upon MiK. Rafiq Saheb (supra), is clearly the Reference Court has determined the market value of the acquiredlandwhilerelyingupona saleexemplarofthis ver}'village. ! i

¶11There is no question of discardingthe:aforesaid Notifications.In fact, inspiteofthe aforesaidNotificationsno developmentactivitywas there on the acquiredlands as no permissionwas soughtby the ov/ners , ' i ofthe acquireillands underDelhiDevelopmentAct and therefore,it can be safely concludedthat tjie acquiredlands were undevelopedaiid thi • I I same could not be comparedwith developedlands for determiningthe marketvalue ofthe acquiredland. Thus, relianceplaced by appellant's counselupon UdhoDass v?. StateofMaryana &Ors., 2010 (9) SCALE 41 is of no ava il. ' , . • • • . •!

¶12Rejecticn of auction rates pf Delhi DevelopmentAuthority, in Sector 20 and 22, of Dwarka, by the Reference Court, is assailed by learnedcounselfor the appellantsby contendingthatthe acquiredlandis fully compara,ble with the aforesaid land and is in proximity and therefore,the ijnarketvalueofthe acquiredlandoughtto have been fixec I ' , with referenceto the auctionrates ofthe Delhi DevelopmentAuthority land applicab Court. So, re misplaced, as Reference Cou Lai Chand vs. rt has not only reliedupon the decision'ofApex Courtir Union ofIndia and Amr., (2009) 15 ,SCC 769 but h^ extensivelyqiioted relevant passages therefrom to hold that the sale considerationof the developedlands,cannot be appliedto the acquirei^ lands which are undisputedlyundeveloped. At the hearing in these appeals, learned counsel for the appellant could not distinguish;the Apex Courtin Lai Chand(supra),whose ratio squarely decision of the vA.App,No. 115/20]1& collectedAppealsofVillageBamnoli : applies to the instantcases. Therefore,I find that the ReferenceCourt •ha? rightlyrelusedto applyDelhiDevelopmentAuthorityauctionrates fpr determiningthe marketvalueofthe acquiredland.

¶13Whilereiteratingthe well settledprincipleoflaw that comparable sale instances, are the best piece of evidenceto be consideredby the; Gourt for the ;mrposeof determining,the compensation.Apex Court ir its^ recent decisionin Radha Mudaliyar Vs. SpecialTahsildar(Land Acquisition Tamil Nadu Housing Board) (2010) 13 SCC 384 has observed as un der:- '•13. Cc determin laid doM' should s genuine executed notificati omparablesalesinstancesare thesafestmethodfor ling the market value ofthe acquiredland and as vn in ShajiKuriakosev. Indian Oil Corpn Ltd it ^^atisfy the factors, inter alia (1) the sale must be transaction; (2) the sale deed mUst have been ' at the time proximateto the date of issuanceof ion underSection4ofthe Act; (3) the landcovered by the safe must he in the vicinityofthe acquiredland; (4) the landcoveredby thesale must be similarto the acquired landand.(5) size oftheplotofthe landcoveredby the sale be compambleto theacquired land The sales instances shouldpr^eferablybe closestto the date ofnotificationas hen alone it wouldsatisfythe touchstoneoftheprinciples contemplatedunder Section 23 of the Act, as held in KanwarSinghvs. UnionofIndia " I

¶14Fixationofthe marketvalue oftlie acquiredland on th^ basisof the sale iiistances(Ex.PW-1/7to Ex.PW-1714)ofthe adjoinin]villages,: as sought by the appellantsstands rightly rejected by the Reference' Courtas tlie sale instancesofthis very villageare available.When it is ^o, then there is no need to look for the,sale instancesofthe adjoining villages. ' ^ I I ' "

¶15On the aforesaidreasoning,adoptionoftheL&DOratesto fix the marketvalueofthe acquiredlandssoughtby the appellantsis outrightly rejected. Appellants'counsel had relied'upon decision of the Apex 5i;tedAppealsofVillageBamnoli Page8of15 LA.App.No. 115/2011 & conne. Court in Kiran Tandon vs, AllahabadDevelopmentAuthority,(2004) 10 see 745 and in Valliyammaland Anr vs. Special Tehsildar (Land - . ' I Acquisition) and Am., AIR 2011 SC 2937 to assert that deduction of j 40% towards developmentchargeswas improperand where large arelg,, not fully developed, is acquired,normally, deductionof about 33% lis 'he need to look for sale insteinces in the vicinity 'is i 5w ofthe fact that the sale instancesofthe instantvillag(p are availableand so the requirementof consideringthe applicabilityof the sale instances(Ex.PW-1/7to Ex.PW-l/r4)would arise only when permissible. obviated in vi sale instance (Ex.R-1) is found to be not comparable. referenceto the aforesaiddecisionsby learnedcounselfor the appellants is of no consequencQ. ^|

¶16During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the appellants had stronglyrslied upon the instanceof allotmentof 14.5 hectares (37 acres approximately)by Delhi DevelopmentAuthority to the Powei" 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 asserteo by learned counsel for the appellantsthat the aforesaid allotment is clearly comparable and therefore, on its basis the compensation(Dught to be enhancedwhile treatingthe acquiredland to be at par witl^ the aforesaid land,allotted to Power Department of Government of Delhi.

¶17To meet the aforesaidstand ofthe appellants,it was pointedloiit by learnedsenjorcounsel for the Respondentsthat aforesaidallotment by Delhi DevejopmentAuthorityto PowerDepartmentof Governrcient j4,App.No. 115/201]&conhectedAppealsofVillageBamnoli 9^. Therefore, of Delhi was aforesaid land made in November, 2007 and^ the possession of the was handed,overto the PowerDepartmentof Government ofDelhi in February,2008 and the acquisitionofthe land in questionis of November, 2004 and during the interveningperiod land rates had steadilyincreasedand therefore,aforesaidallotmentcaimotbe made the basis to determine the market yalue of the acquired land as the • '' 3is of three years. j ors to be considered to determine the market value of the as reiteratedby the Apex Courtin GeneralManager,Ol . ' ' I and Natural Gas CorporationLtd vs. RameskbhaiJivanbhai Patel am. Anr, (2008) SCC 745, are as under:- Pi^imarily, the increase,-iv. 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 intervening ga

¶18Thefac acquired lands gradual, hand, in isfaster, is constr high de touched nineties. withoutany suddenspurts orjumps. On the other urbanorsemi-urbanareas, where the development wherethe demandfor landis high andwherethere uction activity all around, the escalation in market price is at a much higherrate, as compared'to rural areas. In somepocketsin big cities, due to rapiddevelopmeniand nand for land, the escalations in prices have even 30% to 50% or more per year, during the

¶14On, the other extreme, in remote rural areas where there wa^s no chance ofany developmentand hardly any buyers, tl^epricesstagnatedforyearsor rose marginallyat a nominal rate of1% or 2% per annum. There is thus a significantdifferencein increasesin marketvalue oflands in urban/^semi-urbanareas.andincreasesin marketvalueof lands in t^eruralareas. Therefore,ifthe increasein market value in urban/semi-urbanareas is about 10% to. 15%per annum, the correspondingincreasesin rural areas wouldat LA.App. No. 115/2011 & con lectedAppealsof VillageBamnoli Page 10 of IS best be only around half of it, that is about 5%.to 7.5%per annum. This rule of thumb refers to the general trend in the ninetiesi, 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 rate of increase, or any specific evidence relating to the, actual increase in prices, then the increase to be applied would depend upon the same.

¶15Normally, recourse is taken to the mode of determining the market value by providing appropriate escalation over theproved market value of nearby lands in previous years (as evidenced by sale transactions or acquisitions), where there is no • evidence of any contemporaneous sale transactions or acquisitions of comparable lands in the neighbourhood. The said method is reasonably safe where the relied-on' sale transactions/ acquisitionspr&cede the subject acquisition by only a few years, that is uptofour tofiveyears. Beyondthat it may be unsafe, even if it relatesto a neighbouringland. What may be a reliablestandardif the gap is, only a few years, may become larger. . method 1980 m unsafe and unreliable,standard where the gap is wr. example,for determiningthe marketvalue of a land acquired in 1992, adopting the annual increase with reference to a sale or acquisition in 1970 or ay have many pitfalls. This is because, over the course ofyears, the "rate" of annual increase may itself undergo^ drastic change apart from the likelihood of occurre\iceofvaryingperiods ofstagnationin prices or sudden \spurts in prices affecting the very standard of increase." \ I

¶19Being mindful of the ratio of the decisionof the Apex Court ir. ONGC (supra), I find that the instance of institutional allotmen (Ex.PW13/l)of the year 2007 heavily relied upon by the appellantj wouldnot be a usefulguideto determinethe marketvalue of the landir question, as the said allotmentwas made after a period ofthree years from the date of acquisitionofthe land in question.It is so saidbecause the sale exemplarofthe relevantperiodofthisiveryvillagein questionis LA.App.No, 115/2011& connectedAppealsofVillageBamnoli available. Therefore, the aforesaid instance of allotment of land to the i Power Department of Governmentof Delhi has been rightly rejected by I Court. I lat is required to be considered is whether the sale instance d upon by the Reference Court Is a comparable instance or the Reference

¶20Now w' (Ex.R-I) relie not. Undisputsdly,sale instance(Ex.R-l)is ofthis very villageand is of 4 whereas the land in question was acquired vide October, 20C Notification of November, 2004. fevidently, aforesaid sale instance t only relevant but is comparable as it has not been shown (Ex.R-l) is nc by the appellantsas to what are the distinguishingfeatureswhich would icableto determinethe marketvalue ofthe acquiredlands. ReferenceCourtthat when the^saleinstance(Ex.R-l)was exhibitedno objectionwas raisedby the claimantsand as per section51-A of Land Acquisition Act, 1894, 'd certified copy of a registered -cceptable in evidence, and since this document has been . ! i idenceby the Respondents,the same can be read agairis ^ I unimpeachable. . '

¶21However,to meet the aforesaidfinding of the ReferenceCourt, i was submittedby learnedcounselfor the appellantsthat opportunityto lead rebuttalepdenceto show that sale instance(Ex.R-l)is not reliable orbonafide, an applicationto leadrebuttalevidencewas filedbeforeth^ ! i ReferenceCourt which was illegallyrejectedvide order of 25"' August, make it inapp Finding of the dopumentis tendered in e\ them, remains 2010 and the aforesaid sale face the lega •efore, this matter needs to b'e remanded back to the I t I Reference Court to enable the appellants to lead rebuttal evidence to I demolishaforesaidsaleinstance(Ex.R-l).

¶22First of all, appellantsoughtto have objectedto.the exhibitiono I ! nstance(Ex.R-l). Havingnot done so, appellantshave tc ' j consequences. Secondly, even if apphcation of tlie LA.App.No. 115/2011& connectedAppealsofVillageBamnoli Page 12of 15 ! I appellantsflDr leadingrebi^ttalevidencewas rejectedby the Reference Court,nothi:ighad stopped'themfrom movingan appHcationfor leading additionalevidencein the appeal to lead evidencein order to demolish the sale ins:ance (Ex.R-1). l^ot only this, even during the'courseof hearing,nothingwas urgedto,showais to how the sale instance(Ex.R-1) is not genuine/reliableor comparable. light of the evidenceon record, I am of the considered , j sale instance

¶23In the opinionthat ;he ReferenceCourthas rightlyrelieduponthe (Ex.R-1)to ceterminethe marketvalueofthe acquiredlands.Findingno merit in the instantappealsof claimantsand cross-objectionby one of them, the same are dismissedwhileleavingme partiesto beartheirown costs. i as appeals of the Respondentsare concerned,I fmd no hem, becausethe determinationofthe marketvalue ofthe acquiredlandby the ReferenceCourthas been done whilerelyingupo'n tbe sale instance (Ex.R-1) produced by the Respondentsthemselvek ng away oftlie classificationoftlie acquiredland into 'A' Block by the ReferenceCourt is concerned,Ifind thit

¶24, So far substance in Regarding do block and 'B this classifica ion has areasonablebasis. That is to say,' land with tip soiland the landwithouttop soilcannotbeput atparas the marketval^i ofthe landwithouttop soilis boundto be lesserthanthemarketvalueot the landwithtop soil.

¶25Endorsingthepricedifferentiationbetween'A' categoryland anc 'B' categoo-jand, my esteemedbrother Pradeep Nandrajog,J., in L .recentdecisioijin LA.App.No.266/2008,titledas JaiSingh&Ors. vs. Unionoflndit,.S Ors., renderedon 23"' August2011,whilerelyingon tlie decision ot the DivisionBench of this comt in GajrajSingh i UnionofIndia. 2006(VI) AD Delhi 13. has heldas under:- ' LA-A.PP.No. 115/2011& connectedAppealspfVillageBamnoli . "56. In Gajraj Singh'scase (supra), the price differential worked^ out was ^25,000/- per acre. I have noted kereinabove that the acquisition in Gajraj, Singh's case pertained to the date 15.11.1996.In Gajraj Singh's case the pricefo^r Category 'A 'landdetermined,was ^9,76,121/-per acre and for Category 'B' laud, the price determined was ^9-,51,121/-per acre and the price differential comes to about 2.5% with reference to the price of Category 'A' land.

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

¶26Conseq[uentially,the findingof the ReferenceCourtregardingth'e 'A' categoiyand 'B' categorylandbeingsimilarlysituatedhavingsame potentialityand becausethey are acquiredfor the same publicpurjDo^e, i:ainedin the light ofthe aforesaidobservations.However, the Union of India, to seek adoption of the minimum indicativepiice of agriculturalland in Delhi while forgettingthat the Appellant-qoi itselfhas reliedupon the sale instance(Ex.R-1),merits rejection. j .i

¶27In viewofthe,afore-goingnarration,I find thatno substanceinthe I appeals filed 3y claimantsas well as in cross objectionof one of the claimantsand the same are dismissed. So far as the appeals filed by IJnionofIndiaare concerned,the same are partly allowedto the exteiit I '• ' i that the comjpensationawarded by the Reference Court for the 'Bf category of l^nds (as noticed in the Award of the Land Acquisition Collector)is reducedfrom?17,45,000peracreto ^17,01,375/-acre.

¶28Beforepartingthis order,I would like to bring on recordthat the brevity of thi.s order is occasioned by the fact that the impugned on facts and the law. Therefore, I haVe LA.App.No..115/20]1&cojinectedAppealsofVillageBamnoli Page14 ofI5 cannot be sus the elahn of purposeftillypot adverted to the entire evidence on record'and ths relevant evidpce, i.e. of the sale exemplars has been taken into considerationbyme in this order. i

¶29The abpve captionedappealsand cross-objectionare disposedof Avith direction|to the Registryto remitthe compensationamount,ifanyi depositedby qitherside with the RegistrarGeneralofthis Court, to the ^concerned Reference Court. . Fejbruary 01, 2012 pkb/rs 'i^.App,No. 115/2011&connectedAppealsofVillageBamnoli 'NIL GAUR) JUDGE Page 15 of IS

\ib * % IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on: January 12, 2012 Pronounced on: February 01. 2012 + LA.APP. 280/2011 % UNION OF INDIA Through: versus RAM KUMAR & ANR Through: Appellant Mr.SanjayPoddar, 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 forrespondent on R-79) CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR