Union of India v. Dharmbir Singh & Anr

ORDER

01.02.2012 For orders see LA.App. No. 115/2011, titled as Jai Prakash vs. Union ofIndia & Anr. FEBRUARY 01, 2012 pkb --^S^nCgAUR) 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. =1: % -t-IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Resei'^^ed on: Januan^ 12, 2011 Pronounced on: February 01, 2012 LA.APP. 115/2011 (VILLAGE BAMNOLI) JAI PRAKASH Through: UNION OF r LA.APP. 16/2011 LA.APP. 19/^011 LA.APP.22/doi1 LA.APP.90/2|011 LA.APP. 93/2011 Appellant 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.Mohindei 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-L02, 104) Mr.S.K.Rout and Mr.B.K.Routray, Advocates (in R-74 and for respondent on R-79) versus sfDIA& ANR. Respondents 'hrough: Mr.Sanjay Poddar, Senior Advocate with Mr.Sanjay Pathak, Ms.Navlin Swain, Ms.K.K.Kiranand Mr.S.N.Pandey, Advocates for UOI Mr. Yeeshu Jain, Advocate for UOI (P^-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,Advocatesfor DDA in (R-74-77& 80) Mr.MohinderSinghCharak,Advocate(R-63 and 112) AND 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.APP. LA.APP. I.A.App.No. 115/2011 c& connectedAppealsofVillageBamnoli 18/2011 21/2011 24/2011 92/2011 95/2011 Page I of]5 V T sfpiiw LA.APP. 115/2011 LA.APP. 167/2011 LA. APP. 171/2011 LA.APP.17^/2011 LA.APP. 178/2011 LA.APP. 186/2011 LA.APP. 192/2011 LA.APP. 204/2011 LA.APP.20^2011 LA.APP. 210/2011 LA.APP. 263/2011 LA.APP.27^/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/hon LA.APP. 573/2011 LA.APP. 576/2011 LA.APP. 592/2011 LA.App. 196/2011 LA.App. 280/2011 LA.App. 283/2011 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. 208/2011 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) No.9(50)/2004/L&B/LA/1321Iof 04 11 2004^ A.App. No^ 115/2011&connectedAppealsofVillageBamnoli % CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR u ORDER

01.02.2012

¶1Above 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 under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894,and since the impugned order of the ReferencjeCourt in these appealsuniformlygrants compensationat I ' '' the rate of ^17,45,000per acre with statutorybenefits,therefore,v/ith the consent of learned counsel for the parties, who were present at the final hearing, these matters were heard together and are being adjudicated upon by this common order. ! . . .

¶2LandRequisitionCollectorwhilerelyinguponthe indicativeprice fixed by Go the period in ^emment of NCT of Delhi for agricultural land in Delhi for question,had determinedthe marketvalue of the acquired I land in questjionat the aforesaidrate of?15,70,000/-acreofleveled land in Block A, whereas for the acquiredland excavatedbeyond one meter, i.e.. Block B land, compensationwas determinedat the rate of ^14,13,000/-!pe;'acre. i

¶3Not 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 Corporation|of Delhi declaring the land in 20 villages including the instant village to be urbanized. Reliance was also placed upon Notification|)f 16'*^ October,2000 declaringchange of land use of the acquiredlanc^ in questionand thereupon,Delhi DevelopmentAuthority had preparedZonalDevelopmentPlan for DwarkaSub City in Dvv^arka, LA.App.No. ]15/2011& connectedAppealsofVillageBamnoli •tr New Delhi. '

¶4While relying upon seven sale instances (Ex.PW-1/7 to Ex.PVV-1/13)ofthe year 1999,relatingto agriculturalland in VillagePochanpur purchased a religious society - Radha Swami Satsang, Beas, and certifiedcopy of Sale Deed of 2?"' September,2004 (Ex.PW-1/14)of VillageBharthal,enhancementin compensationwas sought. Reference t Court upon evaluation of the evidence on record concluded that there was no evidejnceto the effect that location,potentialand utility of the I land in the Villagesof Bharthal,Pochanpurand Bamnoliis similarand had chosen not to rely upon the aforesaid sale instances as the Sale I instanceof this very villagewas available. j

¶5In theIabsence of the evidence of the VendorA^endeeof the aforesaid sale instances,Reference Court had discardedthe aforesaid sale instancesreliedupon by the appellants/claimants,whileadvertingto paragraphno. 29 ofthe Apex Courtdecisionin Lai ChandV5. Union of India and aW., (2009) 15 SCC 769. Before dealing with the sale instances(Ex.jR-IandEx.R-II)ofVillageBamnoli,ReferenceCourthad refused to ajjply Delhi DevelopmentAuthority auction rate for the commercialpilots or the scheduleof market rates for Vasant Vihar by placing implicitrelianceupon the Apex Court decision in Lai Chand (supra) to hoid that market price for the developed land cannot be applied while determining the market pdce of the undeveloped agricultural land in Delhi. '

¶6To tortifythe aforesaidfinding, ReferenceCourt has extensively quotedthe passagesfrom the Apex Courtdecisionin Lai Chand(supra) and thereafter,! Proceededto discardheavilyreliedupon instanceof allotmentof 14.5 acres of the acquired land by Delhi Development Authorityto tile PowerDepartmentofGovernmentofNCT ofDelhi for L-A.App.No.115/2011&connectedAppealsofVillageBamnoli constmctio,nof 715 Mega Watt Gas Based Power Plant/Project,while holding as pnder:-

¶77The allotmentof1.5 hectareoflandfor apremiumof ^297\.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 tl^e Delhi Development Act, 1957 determination of ' premiumfor allotmentoflandindevelopmentarea is notan ordinarysale betweenaprudentbuyerandseller.Premium of land in such an allotmentcannot be called the market pricey of land which a prospectivebuyer of similar land sittingin his armchairwouldbe willingtopay. I I

¶78IMoreover,there is atimegap 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 determining,market value on the date of NotificationunderSection 4. As per Section24 ofLA Act, the Courtshallnot take into considerationany increaseto the valueofthe landacquiredlikelyto accruefrom the use to which itwillbeput when required." j

¶7On the aspectofthe acquiredlandbeiiigdeclaredurbanizedand of being in the developmentzone, the pertinentfindings returnedby the ReferenceCpurt are as under "94. Landofpetitioneris agricidturallandalthoughit is in urbanized area and in developmentzone. 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 countiy having explosive population!, no residential colony, approvedor unapprovedcame up on the land in question and it\wouldnegatepossibilit}?ofland in questionhaving potentialfor buildingsiteeven in nearfuture. I

¶95The petitionerhas broughtno evidence, leave aside documentaryevidencethat the acquiredland was suitable I LA.App.No. 115/201]& connectedAppealsofVillageBamnoll Pages of 15 I , , for putting up buildings, be they residential or commercial i or indi'strialas the case may be. There is no building i activitystartedon the landin questioneven afterpassingof • a decade since area was urbanized. "

¶8On the question of potentialityof the acquired land. Reference I Court has taken note of the fact that this acquiredland is surroundedon I all four sidesjby Villages-Bharthal, Bijwasan, Pochanpurand Dhul I Siras. Noticingthat acquired land is in the vicinity of Dwarka, where i DDA is developingcolonies and therefore,adoption of the minimum I rates for agriculturalland fixed by the GovernmentofDelhi by the Land AcquisitionCollectorwas not justified.Upon consideringthe two sale instancesof 25''^ October,2004 (Ex.R-1)and of 20''^ April, 2004 (Ex.R-2) of this very village,ReferenceCourt had discardedthe sale instance I (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 sal^ considerationof ^17,45,1.08,which was found to be comparable, i

¶9In the instant appeals, it was vehementlyurged on behalfof the appellantsthat the effectofNotificationof24''' October,1994 declaring the acquired lands being fit for urbanizationand Notificationof 16"' October,2000 regardingthe changeof land use under the MasterPlsin of I Delhi has not l^een consideredby the ReferenceCourtto appreciatethe tiue potentialofthe acquiredland. Reliancewas placedupon decisionof the Apex Court in SpecialLandAcquisitionOfficer& Am vs. M.K. RaflqSaheb,(2011)7SCC 714, by learnedcounselfor the appellantsto contend that in view of the aforesaidNotifications,the acquired land cannot be treated as an agriculturalland for determinationof its market value. ' I

¶10Aforesaidcontentionis noticedfor beingoutrightlyrejectedas the --A.App.No.115/201] & connectedAppealsofVillageBamnoli n acquiredland's may not to be termed as agriculturalland but they were certainlyundeveloped.Government'sminimumrates for the agricultural le to Delhi have been rightly discardedby the Reference iance placed upon M.K. Rafiq Saheb (supra), is clearly the Reference Court has determined the market value of I the acquiredlandwhilerelyinguponasaleexemplarofthis ver}^village.

¶11There is no questionof discardingthe aforesaidNotifications.In fact, inspiteof the aforesaidNotificationsno developmentactivitywas there on the acquiredlands as no permissionwas soughtby the ov/ners ofthe acquiredlandsunderDelhiDevelopmentAct and therefore,itcan be safely concludedthat the acquiredlands were undevelopedand the same could not be comparedwith developedlands for determiningthe market value pf the acquiredland. Thus, relianceplacedby appellant's I counselupon l^dhoDass vs. StateofHaryana&Ors., 2010 (9) SCALE 41 is of no avail. land applicab Court. So, re misplaced, as I

¶12Rejecticjn of auction rates of Delhi DevelopmentAuthority, in • . I Sector 20 an^ 22 of Dwarka, by the Reference Court, is assailed by learnedcounselfor the appellantsby contendingthatthe acquiredla]idis fully compara.ble with the aforesaid land and is in proximity and therefore,the marketvalueofthe acquiredland oughtto have been fixed with referenceto the auctionrates of the Delhi DevelopmentAuthority. ReferenceCourthas not only reliedupon the decisionofApex Courtin Lai Chand vs.j Union ofIndia and Am., (2009) 15 SCC 769 but has extensivelyqi^oted relevant passages therefrom to hold that the sale consideration(|fthe developedlands cannotbe appliedto the acquired lands which are undisputedlyundeveloped. At the hearing in these appeals, learned counsel for the appellant could not distinguish the decisionofthe Apex Courtin Lai Chand(supra),whose ratio squarely LA.App.No. 115/2011 c& connectedAppealsofVillageBamnoli applies to thej instantcases. Therefore,Ifind that the ReferenceCourt has rightlyrelusedto applyDelhi DevelopmentAuthorityauctionrates for determiningthe marketvalueofthe acquiredland.

¶13Whilerpteratingthe well settledprincipleoflawthatcomparable sale mstancesjare the best piece of evidenceto be consideredby the Courtfor the j^urposeofdeterminingthe compensation,Apex Court in its recentdecisionin RadhaMudaliyarVs. SpecialTahsUdar(Land Acquisition TamU Nadu Housing Board) (2010) 13 SCC 384 has observed as under:- I I

¶13Comparablesalesinstancesare thesafestmethodfor eterminincr the vinnvlr^+ . determin laid doM-ing the market value ofthe acquiredland and as n in ShajiKuriakosev. Indian Oil Corpn. Ltd, it . \^urpn. juia., it shouldsatisfy thefactors, inter alia (1) the sale must be <P^PVnjlTno \ j1 t •» , genuine executed^transaction; (2) the sale deed must have been at the time proximateto the date of issuanceof notificationunderSection4oftheAct; (3) the landcovered by the sale must be in the vicinityofthe acquiredland; (4) - the landcoveredby thesale m.usthe similarto the acquired landand (5) sizeoftheplotofthe landcoveredby the sale be comparableto theacquired land The sales instances shouldpr^eferablybe closestto the date ofnotificationas then alon^e it wouldsatisfythe touchstoneoftheprinciples contemplatedunder Section 23 of the Act, as held in KanwarS;inghv^. UnionofIndia."

¶14Fixation|fthe marketvalueofthe acquiredland on the basisof the saleinstanc6|s(Ex.PW-1/7to Ex.PW-I/14)ofthe adjoiningvillages, as sought by the appellantsstands rightly rejected by the Reference ' Courtas tlie sal| instancesofthis very villageare available.When it is so, then thereisjnoneed to look for the sale instancesofthe adjoining villages. j

¶15On the afopsaidreasoning,adoptionoftheL&DOratesto fix the marketvalueofthe acquiredlandssoughtby the appellantsis outrightly rejected. Appellants'counsel had relied upon decision of the Apex LA.App.No. 1,15/20]]&connectedAppealsofVillageBamnoli g Court in Kiraii Tandon V5. AllahabadDevelopmentAuthoritj;,(2004) 10 see 745 and in Valliyammaland Anr V5. Special Tehsildar(Land Acquisition) and Am., AIR 2011 SC 2937 to assert that deduction of 40% towards developmentchargeswas improperand where large area, I not fully developed,is acquired,normally, deduction of about 33% is I permissible. The need to look for sale iristances in the vicinity is obviatedin visw ofthe fact that the sale instancesofthe 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 fhe course of hearing, learned counsel for the appellants had stronglyrplied upon the instanceof allotmentof 14.5 hectares (37 acres approximately)by Delhi Development.Authority to the Power DepartmentofDelhi Governmenton leaseholdbasis at a consideration of ^297.42 lacs per acre with 2.5% annual ground rent to claim enhancementc)f compensationat the rale of ^40 lacsper acre over and abovethe marlptvalue fixed by the Reference.Courtas the allotmentof the aforesaidland was out ofthe acquiredland. With much vehemence ' It was assertecjby learnedcounsel 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 witlp the aforesaid land,allotted to Power Department of Government of Delhi.

¶17To meet the aforesaidstand ofthe appellants,it was pointedout' by learnedsenior counsel for the Respondentsthat aforesaidallotment' I by Delhi DevelopmentAuthorityto Power Departmentof Government' I LA.App,No. 115/2011&connectedAppealsofVillageBamnoli To of Delhi was aforesaid land made in November, 2007 and the possession of the was handedoverto thePowerDepartmentof Government ofDelhi in Fe^bmary,2008 and the acquisitionofthe land in questionis of November, 2004 and during the interveningperiod land rates had I steadilyincreasedand therefore,aforesaidallotmentcannotbe made the basis to detennine the market value of the acquired land as the interveninggap is of threeyears.

¶18The factors to be consideredto determinethe marketvalue of the acquiredlandsjas reiteratedby the Apex Courtin GeneralManager,Oil andNaturalGas CorporationLtd vs. RameshbhaiJivanbhaiPateland Anr, (2008) l-j SCC 745, are as under:- i

¶13Pifimarily, the increase in land prices depends on fourfactors:situationofthe land, natureofdevelopmentin surrount^ingarea, availabilityof landfor developmentin the area^, and the demandfor land in the area. In rural areas, unless there is any prospectof developmentin the vicinity,jincrease in prices would be slow, steady and gradual, withoutany suddenspurtsorjumps. On the other hand, in urbanor semi-urbanareas, where the development isfaster, wherethe demandfor landis highandwherethere is constri^ctionactivityall around, the escalation in market price is gt a much higherrate, as,comparedto rural areas. In somepocketsin big cities, due to rapiddevelopmentand high demand for land, the escalations in prices have touched nineties even 30% to 50% or more per year, during the

¶14On the other extreme, in remote,rural areas where there wa,s no chance of any developmentand hardly any buyers, thepricesstagnatedforyears or rose marginallyat a nominal rate of 1% or 2%, per annum. There is thus a significai^tdifferencein increasesin marketvalue oflands in urban/\semi-urbanareasandincreases,in marketvalueof lands in the ruralareas. Therefore,ifthe,increasein market value in urban/semi-urbanareas is about10% to 15%per annum, the correspondingincreasesin rural areas wouldat I LA.App.No. 115/20]r& connectedAppealsofVillageBamnoli 1-Page 10 of If! best be only aroundhalfofit, that is about5% to 7.5%per annum. This rule of thumb refers to the general trend in the nineties, to be adopted in the absenceof clear and specific evidence relating to increase in prices. Where there are special reasonsfor 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 theprovedmarketvalue ofnearbylands in previous years (as evidenced by sale transactions or acquisitions), where there is no evidence of any contemp^oraneous sale transactions or acquisitions of comparciblelands in the neighbourhood. The said method is reasonably safe where the relied-on sale transactions/ acquisitionsprecede the subjectacquisitionby only a few years, that is uptofour tofiveyears. Beyondthat it may be unsafe, even ifit relatesto a neighbouringland. What may be a reliablestandardif the gap is only afew years, may become unsafe and unreliablestandardwhere the gap is larger.For example,for determiningthe marketvalue ofa land acquired in 1992, adopting the annual increase method\;with referenceto a sale or acquisitionin 1970 or 1980 may have many pitfalls. This is because, over the course ofyears, the "rate" of annual increase may Itself undergd, drastic change apart from the likelihood of occurrei^ceof varyingperiods of stagnation in prices or sudden \spurts in prices affecting the very standard of increase. " \

¶19Being mindful ofthe ratio ofthe decisionofthe Apex Court in ONGC (supra), I find that the instance of institutional allotment (Ex.PW13/l)of the year 2007 heavily relied upon by the appellants I ' wouldnot be ^usefulguideto determinethe marketvalue ofthe land in question, as the said allotmentwas made after a period of three years from the date ofacquisitionofthe land in question.It is so said because the sale exemplarofthe relevantperiodofthisveryvillagein questionis i-A.App.No. 115/2011&coijinectedAppealsofVillageBamnoli available. Therefore, the aforesaid iristance of allotment of land to the ment of Governmentof Delhi has been rightly rejected by Court. lat is required to be considered is whether the sale instance (bx.R-1)reliedupon by the ReferenceCourtis a comparableinstanceor not. Undisputedly,sale instance(Ex.R-1)is ofthis very villageand is of Octpber, 20C4 whereas the land in question was acquired vide Notification of November, 2004. Evidently, aforesaid sale instance (ExjR-1)is not only relevantbut is comparableas it has not been shown by the appellantsas to what are the distinguishingfeatureswhich would I make it inapplicableto determinethe marketvalueofthe acquiredlands. FindingofthejReferenceCourtthatwhenthe sale instance(ix.R-1)was exhibitedno objectionwas raisedby the claimantsand as per section51-A of Land Acquisition.Act, 1894, a certified copy of a registered document is c.cceptablein evidence and since this document has been tenderedin evidenceby the Respondents,the same can be read against I them,remainsjunimpeachable. )

¶21However,to meet the aforesaidfinding of the ReferenceCourt, it I • was submittedby learnedcounsel for the appellantsthat opportunityto I lead rebuttalevidenceto show that sale instance(Ex.R-1)is not reliable I or bonafide, a^ applicationto leadrebuttalevidencewas filed beforethe ReferenceCourt which was illegallyrejectedvide order of 25^'' August, 2010 and therefore, this matter needs to be remanded back to the I Reference Court to enable the appellants to lead rebuttal evidence to demolishaforesaidsaleinstance(Ex.R-1).

¶22First of all, appellantsoughtto have objectedto the exhibitionof aforesaidsale instance(Ex.R-1).Havingnot done so, appellantshave to I face -the legaj consequences. Secondly, even if application of the Power Depan the 'Reference

¶20Now SN LA.App.No. 115/2011& connectedAppealsof VillageBamnoli V) v\ appellantsfl^r leadingrebuttal evidencewas rejectedby the Reference Court,nothinghad stoppedthem from movingan applicationfor leading additionale|idencein the appeal to lead evidencein orderto demohsh the sale ins.ance (Ex.R-1). Not only this, even during the course of hearing,nothingwas urgedto showas to how the sale instance(Ex.R-1) is notgenuine/reliableor comparable. | p. In 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 mthe instantappeals of claimantsand cross^objectionby one of them, the same are dismissedwhile leavingthe partiesto beartheirown costs. as appeals of the Respondents are concerned,I find no them, becausethe determinationofthe marketvalue ofthe by the ReferenceCourthas been done whilerelyingupon tlie sale instEnce (Ex.R-1) produced by the Respondentsthemselves. Regardingdoingaway ofthe classificationofthe acquiredland into 'A' block and 'B| Block by the ReferenceCourt is concerned,Ifind that this classificajionhas areasonablebasis. That is to say, land witl, top soiland the lajidwithouttop soilcannotbe put at paras the marketvalue ofthe landwiljhouttop soilis boundto be lesserthanthe marketvalueof the landwithtop soil.

¶25Endorsiijigthepricedifferentiationbetween'A' categoryland and 'B' category jajid, my esteemed brother Pradeep Nandi'ajog,J., in a recentdecisioijin LA.App.No.266/2008,titledas JaiSingh&On. vs. UnionOflndiif&Ors., renderedon 23'"'August2011, whilerelyingon the decisionoj-the DivisionBench of this court in GajmjSingh vs. UnionofIndia,2006(VI)AD Delhi 13, has held as under:- I

¶24So far substance in acquired land 'LA.App.No. 115/20n &connectedAppealsofVillageBamnoli I "56. in GajrajSingh'scase (supra), theprice differential worked^ out was X25,000/- per acre. I have noted hereinabove that the acquisition in Gajraj Singh's case pertained to the date 15.11.1996.In Gajraj Singh's case the pricefor Category 'A ' landdeterminedwas ^9,76,121/-per acre and for 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, j

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

¶26Conseq[nentially,the finding ofthe ReferenceCourtregardingthe A categoiyand 'B' categoryland beingsimilarlysituatedhavingsame potentialityand becausethey are acquiredfor the same publicpurjpose, cannotbe susjainedin 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-l^OI itselfhas reliedupon the sale instance(Ex.R-1),merits rejection. | I

¶27In viewjofthe.afore-goingnarration,I find thatno substancein the appeals filed 3y claimantsas well as in cross objectionof one of the claimants andj the same are dismissed. So far as the appeals filed by Union ofIndia are concerned,the same are partlyallowedto the extent that the compensationawarded by the Reference Court for the 'B' category of l4nds (as noficed in the Award: of the Land Acquisition Collector)is reducedfi-om^\l,A5,mperacreto ?17,01,375/-peracre. 28, Beforepartingthis order,I would 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 LA.App.No; 115/2011&connectedAppealsofVillageBamnoli Page 14 of15 ' miJ> I I purposefullypot adverted to the entire evidence on record and the relevant evidpce, i.e. of the sale exemplars has been taken into consideration me in this order. I •

¶29The above captionedappealsand cross-objectionare disposedof with directionIto the Registryto remitthe compensationamount,ifany, depositedby qitherside with the RegistrarGeneralofthis Court, to the concerned Reference Court. February 01,2012 pkb/rs A.App.No.115/2011&connectedAppealsofVillageBamnoli GAUR) JUDGE Page IS of 15 7^4

* % + % IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI LA.APP. 279/2011 UNION OF INDIA Through: versus Reserved on: January 12. 2012 Pronounced on: February 01, 2012 Appellant Mr.SanjayPoddar,SeniorAdvocatewithMr.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.Anm Birbal, Mr.Bankey Bihari Sharma, Ms.Amita Singh, Mr.S.K.Sethiand Mr.Kunal Sharma,Advocates for DDA in (R-74-77 & 80) Mr.Mohinder Singh Charak, Advocate (R-63 and 112) DHARMBIR SINGH & ANR Respondent Through: 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. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR