Union of India v. Attar Singh & Anr

ORDER

01.02.2012 For orderssee LA.App.No.115/2011,titled asJai Prakash vs. Union ofIndia & Anr. FEBRUARY 01, 2012 pkb 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. •i--' 'X , \ * % IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on: Januan^ 12, 2011 Pronounced on: February 01, 2012 LA.APP. 115/2011(VILLAGEBAMNOLI) i JAIPRAKASH Through: ..... Appellant Mr.B.S.Maan, Mr.Amit Maan, Mr.R.S.Verma, MrJai 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 appellantin R-112 and respondentin 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) Mr.S.K.RoutandMr.B.K.Routray,Advocates (inR-74 and for respondentonR-79) versus UNIONOF INDIA&ANR. Respondents Through: Mr.Sanjay Poddar, Senior Advocate with Mr.Sanjay Pathak, Ms.Navlin Swain, Ms.K.K.Kiranand Mi-.S.N.Pandey,Advocates for UOI Mr. YeeshuJain,Advocatefor udl (R-1 to 5, : 18-37,47,49,50-52,55-73,75-81,113-123 Mr.ArunBirbal,Mr.BankeyBihariSharma, Ms.Amita Singh, Mr.S.K.Sethi and Mr.Kunal Sharma,Advocatesfor DDAin (R-74-77& 80) Mr.MohinderSingh'Charak,Advocate(R-63 and 112) LA. APP. 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. 18/2011 LA.APP. 21/2011 LA.APP. 24/2011 LA.APP. 92/2011 LA.APP. 95/2011 -A.App.No.-115/20]1& connectedAppealsofVillageBamnoli liibi.,. .... • LA. APP. 115/2011 LA.APP. 167/2011 LA. APP. 171/2011 LA.APP. 174/2011 LA.APP. 178/2011 LA.APP. 186/2011 LA.APP. 192/2011 LA.APP. 204/2011 LA.APP. 207/2011 LA.APP. 210/2011 LA.APP. 263/2011 LA.APP. 275/2011 LA.APP. 293/2011 LA.APP. 304/2011 LA.APP. 307/2011 LA.APP. 310/2011 LA.APP. 313/2011 LA.APP. 316/2011 LA.APP. 319/2011 LA.APP. 325/2011 LA.APP. 355/2011 LA.APP. 358/2011 LA.APP. 364/2011 LA.APP. 492/2011 LA.APP. 495/2011 LA.APP. 499/2011 LA.APP. 503/2011 LA.APP. 506/2011 LA.APP. 513/2011 LA.APP. 573/2011 LA.APP. 576/2011 LA.APP. 592/2011 LA.App. 196/2011 LA.App. 280/2011 LA.App. 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.3p/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) (Relatingto NotificationNo.9(50)/2004/L&B/LA/13211of 04.11.2004 issuedunderSection4ofthe LandAcquisitionAct, 1894& AwardNo 1/2007-2008of06.08.2008,VillageBamnoli,NewDelhi) :j' .A.App.No. 115/2011&connectedAppealsofVillageBamnoli • % CORAMj HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR ORDER

01.02.2012

¶1Above captionedappealsand cross-objectionsrelateto acquisition of about 2100 bighas of land in Village Bamnoli, Delhi notified for PlannedDevelopnientof Delhi vide Notificationof 4^^" November,2004 under the LandAcquisitionAct, 1894 and since the impugnedorder of ^he ReferenceCourt in these appeals unifonnlygrants compensationat 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 being adjudicatedupon by this commonorder.

¶2LandAcquisitionCollectorwhilerelyinguponthe indicativeprice fixed by Governmentof NCT of Delhi for agriculturalland in Delhi for the periodin question,had determinedthe marketvalue ofthe acquired land in questionat the aforesaidrate of"^15,70,000/-peracre ofleveled land in Block A, whereas for the acquiredland excavatedbeyond one meter, i.e.. Block B land, compensationwas determinedat the rate of ^14,13,000/-per acre.

¶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 Corporationof Delhi declaring the land in 20 villages including the instant village to be urbanized. Reliance was also placed upon Notificationof 16^'^ October, 2000 declaringchange of land use of the acquiredland in questionand thereupon,Delhi DevelopmptAuthority had preparedZonalDevelopnientPlan for DwarkaSub City in Dwarka, LA.App.No. 115/20118l connectedAppealsofVillageBamnoli N . New Delhi.

¶4While relying upon seven sale instances(Ex.PW-1/7to Ex.PW-1/13)ofthe year 1999,relatingto,agriculturallandin VillagePochanpur purchased by a religious society —Radha Swami Satsang, Beas, and certifiedcopy of Sale Deed of 27^'^ September,2004 (Ex.PW-1/14)of j VillageBharthal,enhancementin compensationwas sought. Reference Court upon evaluationof the evidence on record concludedthat there was no evidenceto the effect that location,potentialand utilityofthe land in the VillagesofBharthal,Pochanpurand Bamnoliis similarand had chosen not to rely upon the aforesaid sale instances as the Sale instanceofthis very villagewas available. ,5. In the absence of the evidence of the Vendor/Vendeeof the aforesaidsale instances.Reference Court had discarded,the aforesaid sale instancesreliedupon by the appellants/claimants,whileadvertingto , paragraphno: 29 ofthe Apex Courtdecisionin Lai Chandvs. Union of India and Am., (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 Lai Chand (supra) to hold that market price for the developed land cannot be applied while determining the market price of the agricultural land in Delhi.

¶6To fortifythe aforesaidfinding,ReferenceCourt has extensively quotedthe passagesfrom the Apex Courtdecisionin Lai Chand(supra) and thereafter,had proceededto discardheavilyreliedupon instanceof •allotment of 14.5 acres of the acquired land by Delhi Development Authorityto the PowerDepartmentof,GovernmentofNCT ofDelhi for undeveloped •LA.App. No. 115/20]]&. connectedAppealsofVillageBamnoli fC constructionof 715 Mega Watt Gas Based Power Plant/Project,while ! holdingas under:- ! I

¶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 the Delhi Development Act, 1957 determination of premiumfor allotmentoflandin developmentarea isnotan •i 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 bet\A>een 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 determiningmarketvalue on the^dateof NotificationunderSection 4. As perSection24 ofLA Act, the Courtshallnot take into considerationany increaseto the valueofthe landacquiredlikelyto accruefrom the use to which it willbeput when required."

¶7On the aspectofthe acquiredlandbeingdeclaredurbanizedand of being in the developmentzone, the pertinentfindings returned by the ReferenceCourtare as under:- l "94. Landofpetitioneris agidculturalland althoughit is i 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 countiy ' having explosive population, no residential colony, approvedor unapprovedcame up on the land in question and it would negatepossibilityofland in questionhaving potentialfor buildingsite even innearfuture. \

¶95The petitionerhas broughtno evidence, leave aside documentaryevidencethat the acquiredland was suitable LA.App.No. 115/201]&connectedAppealsofVillageBamnoli Page5of IS i' I for putting up buildings, be they residential or conimercial or industrialas the case may be. There is no building activitystartedon the landin questioneven afterpassingof a decade since area was urbanized. "

¶8On the question of potentialityof the acquired land, Reference Courthas takennote ofthe fact that this acquiredland is surroundedon all four sides by Villages-Bharthal, Bijwasan,Pochanpurand Dhul Siras. Noticingthat acquiredland is in the vicinityofDwarka, where DDA is developingcolonies and therefore, adoption of the minimum rates for agriculturalland fixed by the GovernmentofDelhi by the Land AcquisitionCollectorwas not justified.Upon consideringthe two sale instancesof October,2004 (Ex.R-1)and of 20^'^ April,2004 (Ex.R-2), ofthis very village,ReferenceCourt had discardedthe 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 considerationof =<17,45,1.08 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^' October,2000 regardingthe changeoflanduse underthe MasterPlanof Delhi has not been consideredby the ReferenceCourtto appreciatethe tiuepotentialofthe acquiredland. Reliancewas placedupon decisionof the Apex Court in SpecialLandAcquisitionOfficer& Am fs". MJL RafiqSaheb,(2011)7SCC 714, by learnedcounselfor the appellantsto contend that mview of the aforesaidNotifications,the acquired land cannotbe treatedas an agriculturalland for determinationof its market value. • !

¶10Aforesaidcontentionis noticedfor beingoutrightlyrejectedas the :! I LA.App.No. 115/201]&connectedAppealsofVillage-Barrinoli Page6of15 .i acquiredlands may not to be termed as agriculturalland but they v^ere certainlyundeveloped.Government'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 misplaped,as the ReferenceCourt has determinedthe market value of the acquiredlandwhilerelyinguponasaleexemplarofthis veryvillage.

¶11There is no questionof discardingthe aforesaidNotifications.In fact, inspiteofthe 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, relianceplaced by 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 rdiedupon the decisionofApex Court in Lai Chand vs. Union ofIndia andAm., (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 decisionofthe Apex Courtin Lai Chand(supra),whose ratio squarely .A.App.No. 115/2011&connectedAppealsofVillageBamnoli Page7ofl5 ^ \ • • ^ \ applies to the instantcases. Therefore,I find that the ReferenceCourt , has rightlyrefusedto applyDelhiDevelopmentAuthorityauctionrates for determiningthe marketvalueofthe acquiredland. ^

¶13^Whilereiteratingthe well settledprincipleoflawthatcomparable sale instances,are the best piece of evidenceto be consideredby the Court for the pmposeof determiningthe compensation,Apex Court in •Its recent decisionin 'RadhaMudaliyar Vs, SpecialTahsildar(Land . Acquisition Tamil Nadu Housing Board) (2010) 13 SCC 384 has observed as under:-

¶13Comparablesalesinstancesare thesafestmethodfor the market value ofthe acquiredlandand as la^down in Shaji Kuriakosev. Indian Oil Corpn Ltd it '• shouldsatisfy thefactors, inter alia (I) the sale must be genuine transaction; (2) the sale deed must have been aecatedat the timeproximateto the date ofissuanceof notificationunderSection4oftheAct; (3) the landcovered ythe salemust be in the vicinityofthe acquiredland; (4) landand (5) sizeoftheplotofthe landcoveredby the sale shZTr'^f n i'^'ances thZ ! ,/ " °f"°tiflcatimas then aloneit wouldsatisfythe touchstoneoftheprinciples contemplatedunder Section 23 of the Act, as held m KanwarSinghvs. UnionofIndia."

¶14Fixationoftlie marketvalueofthe acquiredland on the basisof £he saleinstances(Ex.PW-1/7to Ex.PW-I/I4)ofthe adjoiningvillages,, as sought by the appellants stands rightly rejected by the Reference. Court as tlie saleinstancesofthis very villageare available.When it is' so, then there is no need to look for the sale instancesofthe adjoining, • 'villages. ;15. On tl,e aforesaidreasoning,adoptionofthe L&DOratesto fix the marketvalueofthe acquiredlandssoughtby the appellantsis outrightly rejected. Appellants'counsel had relied upon decision of the Apex LA.App.No. 115/20]]c& connectedAppealsofVillageBamnoli g a Court in Kiran Tandon vs. Allahabad DevelopmentAuthority, (2004) 10 see 745 and in Valliyammal and Am vs. Special Tehsildar (Land Acquisition) and Am., AIR 2011 SC 293/ to assert that deduction of 40% towards developmentchargeswas 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 ofthe fact that the sale instancesof the instantvillage are availableand so the requirementof consideringthe applicability.of 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 of hearing, 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 otUO lacsper acre over and above the marketvalue fixed by the ReferenceCourt as the allotmentof the aforesaidland was out ofthe acquiredland. With much vehemience, 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 Governmentof Delhi. i

¶17lo meet the aforesaidstand of the appellants,it was pointedout . by learned senior counsel for the Respondentsthat aforesaidallotment by Delhi DevelopmentAuthorityto Power Departmentof Govermneit ! ,A.App.No. ]15/201]&connectedAppealsofVillageBamnoli Page,9ofis i V-.- •'1 •LA i' '' ^ I I of Delhi was made in Noveniber, 2007 and the possession of the aforesaidland was handedoverto the PowerDepartmentofGovernment ofDelhi in February,2008 and the acquisitionofthe land in question'is of November, 2004 and during the interveningperiod land rates had steadilyincreasedand therefore,aforesaidallotmentcannolbe made the basis to determine the market value of the acquired land as the interveninggap is ofthreeyears.

¶18The factorsto be consideredto deterniinethe marketvalue ofthe acquiredlands as reiteratedby the Apex Courtin GeneralManager,Oil andNaturalGas CorporationLtd vs. RameshbhaiJivanbhaiPate!and Anr, (2;008) 14SCC 745, are as under:- I

¶13Primarily, the increase in land prices depends on fourfactors:situationofthe land, natureofdevelopmentin surroundingarea, availabilityoflandfor developmentin the area, and the demandfor land in the area. In rural areas, unless there is any prospectofdevelopmentin 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 constructionactivityallaround, the escalationin market price IS at a much higherrate, as comparedto rural areas. In somepocketsin big cities, due to rapiddevelopmentand high demand for land, the escalations iri 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 about10% to 15%per annum, the correspondingincreasesin ruralareaswouldat App. No. 115/20]1& connectedAppealsofVillageBamnoli Page lOoflS 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 nineties, to be adopted in the absence of clear and specific evidence relating to increase in prices. Where there are special reasons for applying a higher rate of increase, or any specific evidence relating to the actual increase in prices, then the increase to be applied woidd depend upon the same. I • I

¶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/ acquisitionsprecede the subjectacquisitionby only a few years, that is uptofour tofive years. 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 unsafe and unreliablestandardwhere the gap is larger.For example,for determiningthe marketvalue ofa 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" of annual increase may itself undergo drastic change apart frorn the likelihood of occurrenceof varyingperiods of stagnationin prices or sudden spurts in prices affecting the very standard of increase. "

¶19Being mindful ofthe ratio ofthe decisionof the Apex Court in ONGC (supra), I find that the instance of institutional allotment (Ex.PWlS/l)of the year 2007 heavily relied upon by the appellants wouldnot be a usefulguideto determinethe marketvalue ofthe lamd in question, as the said allotmentwas made after a period of three years fi-om the date ofacquisitionofthe land in question.It is so said because the sale exemplarofthe relevantperiodofthis veryvillagein questionis LA.App.No. 115/2011&connectedAppealsofVillageBamnoli ' Pageij ofIS available. Therefore, the aforesaid instance of allotment of land to the PowerDepartmentofGovernmentofDelhi has been rightlyrejected!by the Reference Comt.

¶20Now what is required to be considered is whether the sale instance (Ex.R-1)reliedupon bytheReferenceCourtis a comparableinstanceor not. Undisputedly,sale instance(Ex.R-1)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 onlyrelevantbut is comparableas it has not been shown by the appellantsas to what are the distinguishingfeatureswhich would make it inapplicableto determinethe marketvalueofthe acquiredlands. Findingofthe ReferenceCourtthatwhenthe sale instance(Ex.R-1)was exhibitedno objectionwas raisedby the claimantsand as per section51-A of Land Acquisition Act, 1894, a certified copy of' a registered documentis acceptablein evidence and since this documenthas been tenderedin evidenceby the Respondents,the same can be read a.gainst them, remainsunimpeachable.

¶21However,to meet the aforesaidfindingofthe ReferenceCourt, it was submittedby learnedcounsel for the appellantsthat opportunityto lea4 rebuttalevidenceto showthat sale instance(Ex.R-1)is not reliable orbonafide, anapplicationto leadrebuttalevidencewas filed beforethe ReferenceCourt which was illegallyrejectedvide orderof25^'' August, 2010 and therefore, this matter needs to be remanded back to the Reference Court to enable the appellantsto lead rebuttal evidence to demolishaforesaidsaleinstance(Ex.R-1). J •22. Firstof all, appellantsoughtto have objectedto the exliibition'of aforesaidsale instance(Ex.R-1).Havingnot done so, appellantshave to face the legal consequences. Secondly, even if application of the I LA.Ai.-^.No. 115/2011&connectedAppealsofVillageBamnoli Page 12 ofIS appellantsfor leading rebuttal evidencewas rejectedby the Reference Court,nothinghad stoppedthem from.movingan applicationfor leading additionalevidencein the appeal to lead evidencein order 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.R-1) is not genuine/reliableorcomparable.

¶23In the light of the evidence on record, I am of the considered opinionthatthe ReferenceCourthas rightlyreliedupon the sale instance (Ex.R-1)to detemiinethe marketvalueofthe acquiredlands.Findingno merit in the instantappeals of claimantsand cross-objectionby one of them, the same are dismissedwhile leavingthe partiesto beartheirown costs.

¶24So far as appeals of the Respondentsare concerned,I fmd no substancein them, becausethe determinationofthe marketvalue ofthe acquiredland by the ReferenceCourthas been done whilerelyingupon the sale instance (Ex.R-1) produced by the Respondentsthemselves. Regardingdoingaway ofthe classificationofthe acquiredland into 'A' block and 'B' Block by the ReferenceCouit is concerned,I find that this classificationhas areasonablebasis. That is to say, land with top soil and the landwithouttop soil cannotbe put at par as the marketvalue ofthe landwithouttop soil is boundto be lesserthanthe marketvalueof the land withtop soil. • |

¶25Endorsingthe pricedifferentiationbetween'A' categoryland and 'B' category land, my esteemed brother Pradeep Nandrajog, J., in la recentdecisionin LA.App.No.266/2008,titledas JaiSingh dE Ors. vk UnionofIndia Ors., renderedon 23'"August2011,whilerelyingon the decision of the DivisionBench of this court in Gajmj Singh : UnionofIndia,2006(VI) AD Delhi 13, has held as under:- IfLA.Api^.No. ]15/2011 C& connectedAppealsofVillageBamnoli Page 13 of IS "56. In Gajraj Singh'scase (supra), theprice differential \ worked out was ^25,000/- 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 Categoiy 'A ' landdeterminedwast9,76,121/-per acre andfor Category 'B' land the price determinedwas \ ^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 guiding star for price differential in the instant cases as •well and thus I hold that whereverCategory A', Category ^ Category 'C have to be differentiatedonprice, the ^ differentialshouldbe 2.5%o.", ;

¶26Consequentially,the findingofthe ReferenceCourtregardingthe A categoiyand 'B' categorylandbeingsimilarlysituatedhavingsame potentialityand becausethey are acquiredfor the same publicpurpose, 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 relieduponthe sale instance(Ex.R-1),merits rejection. J

¶27In viewoftheafore-goingnarration,Ifindthatno substancein the appeals filed by claimantsas well,as in cross objectionof one of tiie claimantsand the same are dismissed. So far as the appeals filed by Union ofIndia are concerned,tlie same are partlyallowedto the extent that the compensationawarded by the ReferenceCourt'for the 'B' categoiyof lands (as noticed in the Award of the Land Acquisition Collector)«reducedfromri7,45,000^,gracr^to ?17,01,375/-pa.acre.

¶28Beforepartingthis order,Iwould like to bring on recordthat the brevity of tliis order is occasioned by the fact that the impugned judgmem is well consideredon facts and the law. Therefore,I have LA.App.No. 115/2011&connectedAppealsofVillageBamnoli • / purposefullynot adverted to the entire evidence on record and tlie relevant evidence, i.e. of the sale exemplars has been taken into I considerationby me in this order. ' . |

¶29The above captionedappeals and cross-objectionare disposedof with directionto tlie Registryto remitthe compensation,ainount,ifany, depositedby eitherside with the RegistrarGeneralofthis Court, to the concerned Reference Court. JNIL GAU]R) JUBGE February 01, 2012 pkb/rs -VApp. No. 115/2011&connectedAppealsofVillageBamnoli

/ % -t- % IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI LA.APP. 281/2011 UNION OF INDIA Through: versus ATTAR SINGH & ANR Through: Reserved on: January 12. 2012 Pronounced on: February 01, 2012 Appellant Mr.SanjayPoddar,SeniorAdvocatewith 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.Sethiand Mr.KunalSharma,Advocates forDDAin(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 Mi-.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) COIMM: IION'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR