Mahabir Singh & Ors v. Union of India & 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 «L GAUR) JUDGE / Certify that the digital file and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file and no page is missing. IN THE H [GH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI • Reserved on: January 12, 2011 Pronounced on: February 01, 2012 LA.APP. 115/2011 (VILLAGE JAIPRAKA SH .....Appellant Through: Mr.B.S.Maan,Mr..AmitMaan,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.RoutandMr.B.K.Routray,Advocates (inR-74 and for respondentonR-79) versus NDIA&ANR. Respondents rhrough: Mr.SanjayPoddar, Senior Advocate with Mr.Sanjay Pathak, Ms.Navlin Swain, Ms.K.K.Kiran and ^Mr.S.N.Pandey,Advocates for UOI I Mr. YeeshuJain, Advocate for UOI (R-1 to 5, 18-37, 47, 49, 50-52, 55-73, 75-81, 113-123 Mr.Arun Birbal, Mr.BanlceyBihari Sharma, Ms.Amita Singh, Mr.S.K.Sethi and Mr.Kunal Sharma, Advocates'for DDA in (R-74-77 & 80). Mr.MohinderSinghCharak,Advocate(R-63 and 112) • UMONOF LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. lA.APP. 16/2011 19/2011 22/2011 90/2011 93/2011 AND LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. .17/2011 20/2011 23/2011 91/2011 94/2011 I.A.App.No. 115/2011& connectedAppealsofVillageBamnoli LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP: I.A.APP. 18/2011 21/2011 24/2011 92/2011 . 95/2011 ^ i -4i#S i (I "I leiP •f la. i I... I)'" 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. LA.App. \1 5/2011 7/2011 1/2011 4/2011 8/2011 6/2011 2/2011 4/2011 7/2011 0/2011 3/2011 5/2011 3/2011 304/2011 7/2011 310/2011 311/2011 3lj/2011 31^/JOll 325/2011 355/2011 35^/2011 36^/2011 492/2011 49^/2011 499/2011 503/2011 506/2011 513/2011 573^2011 576/2011 592/2011 196/ 280/ '2011 '2011 283/2011 287 '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. LA.App. 133/2011 168/2011 172/2011 175/2011 179/2011 187/2011 193/2011 205/2011 208/2011 211/2011 264/2011 276/2011 295/2011 305/2011 308/2011 311/2011 314/2011 317/2011 320/2011 352/2011 356/2011 359/2011 490/2011 493/2011 .497/2011 . 501/2011 . 504/20.11 ••507/2011 . 524/2011 ••574/2011 ,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.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.3^)6/2011 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. 184/20 ir& C.M.No. 10953/2011 (Cross-objection) (Relatingto NotificationNo.9(50)/2004/L&B/LA/13211of 04.11.2004 issuedunder Section4ofthe LandAcquisitionAct, 1894& AwardNo 1/2007-2008of06.08.2008,VillageBamnoli,NewDelhi) •A.App.No. 115/2011& ccmnectedAppealsofVillageBamnoli Vo CORAM: HON'BLE r. Abo\ of about 2: Planned De under the L the Referen the rate of the consent final hearii adjudicated

¶2Land fixed by Go MR. JUSTICE. SUNIL GAUR ORDER

01.02.5012 e captionedappealsand cross-objectionsrelateto acquisition 00 bighas of land in Village Bamnoli, Delhi notified for velopmentof Delhi vidb Notificationof 4^^ November,2004 and AcquisitionAct, 1894 and since the impugnedorder of ce Court in these appeals uniformlygrants compensationat ^17,45,000per acre with statutorybenefits,therefore,with of learned counsel for the parties,who were presentat the ig, these matters were heard together and are being upon by this common order. AcquisitionCollectorwhilerelyinguponthe indicativeprice vemment of NCT of Delhi for agricultural land in Delhi for the periodin question,had determinedthe marketvalue ofthe acquired land in questionat the aforesaidrate of 5,70,000/-per acre ofleveled land in Block A, whereas for the acquiredland excavatedbeyond one meter, i.e., Block B land, compensationwls 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 "Notifi Corporation instant vilk Notification cation of 24"^ October,'1994 issued by the Municipal of Delhi declaring the land in 20 villages iiicludingthe ge to be urbanized. Rehance was also placed upon of 16'^ October,2000 declaringchange of land use of the acquiredland in questionand thereupon,Delhi DevelopmentAuthority had prepared ZonalDevelopmentPlan for DwarkaSub City in Dwarka, L/\.App.No. ]15/2011& connectedAppealsofVillageBamnoli New Delhi,

¶4Whil 1/13) of the purchased certified co ; relying upon seven sale instances(Ex.PW-1/7to Ex.PW-year 1999,relatingto agriculturallandin Village.Pochanpur 5y a religious society —Rqdha Swami Satsang, Beas, and py of Sale Deed of 27^"' September,2004 (Ex.PW-1/14)of VillageBharthal,enhancementin compensationwas sought;Reference Court upon evaluationof the evidence on record concludedthEit there was no evidenceto the effectthat location,potentialand utility of the land in the • had chosen VillagesofBharthal,Pochanpurand Bamnoliis similarand not to rely upon the aforesaid sale instances as the Sale instanceofthis very villagewas available.

¶5In the absence of the evidence,of the Vendor/Vendeeof! the aforesaid sale-instances.Reference Court had discardedthe aforesaid saleinstancesrelieduponby the appellants/claimants,whileadvertingto paragraphno: 29 ofthe Apex Courtdecisionin Lai Chandvs. Unionof India and Am., (2009) 15 SCC 769. Before dealing with the sale instances(Ex.R-Iand Ex.R-II)ofVhlageBamnoli,ReferenceCourthad refused to apply Delhi DevelopmentAuthority auction rate for the commercial placing imp' (supra) to h applied whi plots or the scheduleof.market rates for Vacant Vihar by icit reliance upon the Apex Court decision in Lai Chand old that market price for the developed land cannot be le determining the market price of the ^undeveloped agriculturallandinDplhi.

¶6To fortifythe aforesaidfinding.ReferenceCourt has extensively issagesfrom the Apex Courtdecisionin Lai Chand(supra) r, had proceededto discardheavilyreliedupon instanceof

14.5 acres of the acquired land by Delhi Development ;he PowerDepartmentofGovermnentofNCT ofDelhi for quoted the p£ •and thereafte allotment of Authority to LA.App.No. U 5/2011 & onnectedAppealsofVillageBamnoii P 1of 715 Mega Watt Gas Based Power Plant/Project,while constmctio: holding as under:- '77. ^297 Buye devel questi of th prem ordin of la] price sitting

¶78date the va to whi

¶7On the being in the Reference C "94. in url contin The allotmentof1.5hectareoflandfor apremiumof 42 lakh per acre is an inter departmentalallotment. and seller both are agencies of state. Since no lopment/constructioncan take place on the land in ion withoutpermissionofDDA in view ofSection 12 e Delhi Development Act, 1957 determination of 'umforallotmentoflandin developmentarea is notan ary sale betweenaprudent buyerand seller.Premium id in such an allotmentcannot be called the market of land which a prospectivebuyer of similar land in his armchairwouldbe willingtopay. Moreover,there is a timegap ofthreeyears between 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 undeT>^ Section 4 of LA Act cannot be taken into considerationfor determiningmarket value on the dateof NotificationunderSection4. As per Section24 ofLA Act, the Courtshallnot take into considerationany increaseto lue ofthe landacquiredlikelyto accruefrom the use chit will beput whenrequired." aspectoftheacquiredland beingdeclaredurbanizedand of developmentzone, the pertinentfindings returned by the Durt are as under Landofpetitioneris agi'lculturalland althoughit is ^anized area and in developmentzone. The land Ued 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 wouldnegatepossibilityofland in questionhaving potentialfor buildingsiteeven in nearfuture.

¶95The petitionerhas broughtno evidence, leave aside documentaryevidencethat the acquiredland was suitable LA.App.No. 115/201]& connectedAppealsofVillageBamnoli ri activity a decad

¶8On the for puttng up buildings, be they residentialor commercial or. industrialas the case may be. There is no building startedon the land-in questionQven afterpassingof e since area was urbanized. " 5/ question of potentialityof the acquired land, Reference Courthas taken note ofthe fact that this acquiredland is surroundedon .all four sides by Villages-Bharthal, Bijwasan,Pochanputand Dhul Siras, Noticingthat acquiredland is in the vicinityofDwarka, where is developingcolonies and therefore, adoption of the minimum rates for agriculturalland fixed by the GovernmentofDelhiby the Land AcquisitionCollectorwas not justified.Upon consideringthe two sale instancesof 25^'^ October,2004 (Ex.R-1)and of20'^ April, 2004 (Ex.R-2) of this very (Ex.R-2) as sa depressed and depicting sale comparable."

¶9In the ir appellants that village,ReferenceCourt had discardedthe sale instance le considerationof ?9,02,496per acre was found to be had chosen to rely upon thp sale: instance (Ex.R-1) consideration of ?17,45"108 which was found to be stant appeals, it was vehementlyurged on behalfof the the effectofNotification,of 24'^' October, 1994 declaring the acquired lands being fit for urbanizationand Notificationof 16"^ . October, 2000 •egardingthe changeof landuse underthe MasterPlan of Delhi has not been consideredby the ReferenceCourtto appreciatethe truepotentialofthe acquiredland. Reliancewas placedupon decisionof the Apex Court"in SpecialLandAcquisitionOfficer sS Am V5, M.IC RafiqSaheb,(2011)7SCC 714, by learnedcounselfor the appellantsto, contend that ir. view of the aforesaidNotifications,the acquired land carmotbe treat{jdas an agriculturalland for determinationof its market' value.

¶10Aforesaidcontentionis noticedfor beingoutrightlyrejebtedas the' ,^A.'App.No.115/201]•& con lected Appeals of VillageBamnoli ds may not to be termed as agriculturalland biut they were developed.Government'sminimumrates for the agricultural land applicableto Delhi have been rightly discardedby the-Reference Court. So, relianceplaced upon M,K Rafiq Saheb (supra), is clearly misplaced,as the ReferenceCourt has determinedthe marketvalue of the acquired]and whilerelyingupon a;saleexemplarofthisveryvillage.

¶11There .s no questionof discardingthe aforesaidNotifications.In fact, inspiteof the aforesaidNotificationsno developmentactivitywas there on the acquiredlands as no permissionwas soughtby the owners ofthe acquiredlandsunderDelhiDevelopmentAct and therefore,it can be safely concludedthat the acquiredlands were.undevelopedand the same could not be comparedwith developedlands for determiningthe marketvalue of the acquiredland. Thus, relianceplacedby appellant's counselupon UdhoDass vs. StateofHaryana OrSi, 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 learnedcouns(;lfor the appellantsby contendingthatthe acquiredlandis folly comparable with the aforesaid land and is in proximity and therefore,the marketvalueofthe acquiredlandoughtto have been fixed to the a.uctionrates ofthe Delhi DevelopmentAuthority. acquired Ian certainly unc with reference ReferenceCourthas not onlyrelieduponthedecision,ofApex Court in Lai Chand vs. Union ofIndia andAm., (2009) 15 SCC 769 but has extensivelyqi.oted relevant passages therefrom to hold that the sale considerationof the developedlands cannot be appliedto the acquired lands which £,re undisputedlyundeveloped. At the hearing in these appeals, learn(;d counsel for the appellant could not distinguishthe Apex CourtmLai Chand(supra),whose ratio squarely decision of the I LA.App.No. 115/2011 & cor nectedAppealsofVillageBamnoli applies to the instantcases. Therefore,I find that the ReferenceCourt fused to apply Delhi DevelopmentAuthorityauctionrates ig the marketvalueofthe acquiredland. •eiteratingthe well settledprincipleoflaw that comparable , are the best piece of evidenceto be consideredby the purposeofdeterminingthe compensation,Apex'Courtin ision in RadhaMudaliyar Vs. SpecialTahsildar(Land ^amil Nadu Housing Board) (2010) 13 SCC 384 has ider:- has rightly re for determini]

¶13While.] , sale instances Court for the its recent dec Acquisition : observed as ui

¶13Cjomparablesalesinstancesare thesafestmethodfor ning the marketvalue..ofthe acquirediand and as vn in ShajiKuriakosev: Indian Oil Corpn. Ltd, it satisjy the factors, inter alia (I) the sale must be transaction; (2) the sale deed must have been executedat the timeproximateto the date ofissuanceof notificaf ^ " • • - - by the-s the lana determi laid da should genuine ion underSection4 ofthe Act; (3) the landcovered ale must be in the vicinityofthe acquiredland; (4) coveredby the sale must be similarto the accjuired landand (5) size oftheplotofthe landcovered^by the sale be comparableto the acquired land The sales instances shouldpreferablybe closest'to the date ofnotificationas ne it wouldsatisfythe touchstoneofthe principles then ale contemplatedunder Section 23 of the Act, as held in Kanwar Singh vs. UnionofIndia.

¶14Fixationofthe marketvalue ofthe acquiredland on the basis of the sale instances(Ex.PW-1/7to Ex.PW-1/14)ofthe adjoiningvillages, as sought by the appellants stands rightly rejected by the Reference Court as the sale instancesofthis very villageare available.When it is s no need to look for the sale instancesof the adjoining so, then there villages.

¶15On the a market value o iforesaidreasoning,adoptionof the L&DO rates to fix the )fthe acquiredlands soughtby the appellantsis outrightly rejected. Appellants' counsel had relied upon decision of the Apex LA.App.No. 115/2011&cornectedAppealsofVillageBamndli Page8of15 Court in Kiran Tandon vs. AllahabadDevelopmentAuthority,(2004) 10 see 745 and in ValliyammalandAm vs. SpecialTehsildar(Land Acquisition) and Am., AIR 2011 SC 2937 to assert that deduction of developmentchargeswas improperand where large area, sloped, is acquired, normally^ deduction of about 33% is The need to look for. sale instances in the vicinity is ew ofthe fact that the sale instancesofthe instantvillage and so the requirementofconsidering,the apphcabilityof 40% towards not fully dev permissible, obviated in v: are available 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 conse

¶16During quence. the course of hearing, learned'^counselfor the appellants had stronglyrelied upon the instanceof allotmentof 14.5 hectares(37 acres approxi Department o imately) by Delhi DevelopmentAuthority to the Power Delhi Governmenton leaseholdbasis a.t a consideration, of ^297.42 lacs per acre with 2.5% annual ground rent to claim enhancementof compensationat the rate oit40lacslperacre over and abovethe marketvaluefixedby the ReferenceCourtas the allotmentof the aforesaidlandwas out ofthe acquiredland. Withmuch vehemence, by learned counsel for the appellantsthat the aforesaid clearly comparable and therefore, on its basis the compensationought to be enhancedwhile treatingthe acquiredland to be at par with the aforesaid laad allotted^(to Power Department of Government of Delhi. ' the aforesaidstand of the appellants,it was pointedout nor counsel for the Respondentsthat aforesaidallotment it was asserted allotment is

¶17To meet by learned ser by Delhi DevelopmentAuthoritytoTower Departmentof Government l.-A.App.No. ]15/201] & cornectedAppealsofVillageBamnoli t3 of Delhi was made in November, 2007 and the possession of the aforesaidlanclwashandedoverto the PowerDepartmentofGovernment •of Delhi in F(;bruary,2008 and the acquisitionofthe land in questionis of November, 2004 and during the interveningperiod land rates had steadilyincreised and therefore,aforesaid,allotmentcannotbe made the basis to determine the market value of rhe acquired land as the interveninggap is of three years.

¶18The factors to be consideredto determinethe market value of the acquiredlands as reiteratedby the Apex Courtin GeneralManager,Oil and Natural Gas CorporationLtd vs. RameshbhaiJivanbhaiPate!and Anr, (2008) 14 SCC 745, are as under "13 four fac surroun / rimarily, the increase in land prices.depends on tors: situation of the land, nature ofdevelopmentin ding area, availabilityof landfor developmentin the arc 2, and the deynandfor land ifi the area. In rural areas, unless there is any prospectof developmentin the vicinity, increase in prices would be slow, steady and gradual, withoutany suddenspurtsorjumps. On the other hand, zV; urbanor semi-urbanareas, wherethe development isfaster is const price is In some , wherethe demandfor landis highand wherethere '^uction activity all around, the escalation in market at a much higherrate, qs comparedto rural areas, pocketsin big cities, due to rapiddevelopmentand high demand for land, the escalations in prices have touched even 30% to 50% or more per year,' during the nineties

¶14O there w, buyers, a nomi significc in urban lands in value in annum. n the other extreme, in remote rural areas where '2s no chance of any developmentand hardly any thepricesstagnatedforyears or rose margindllyat \dl rate of 1%) or 2%> per annum. There is tl^us a mt differencein increasesin marketvalue oflands "/semi-urbanareasand increasesin marketvalueof the ruralareas. Therefore,ifthe increasein market urban/semi-urbanareas is about 10% to 15%per 'he corresponding increases in rural areas would at LA.App.No. 115/2011 & co:nnected Appeals of VillageBamnoli Page 10 of II5 best be annum, ninetiei evidena special any sp prices, the sam only around halfof it, that is about 5% to 7.5%per This rule ofthumb refers to the general trend in the , to be adopted in the absence of clear and specific e relating to increase in prices. Wlaere there are reasonsfor applyinga higher rate of increase, or ^zcific evidence relating to the actual increase in then the increaseto he appliedwoulddependupon e.

¶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 acquisiions), where there is no evidence of any contemporaneous sale transactions lor acquisitions of comparable lands in the neighbourhood.The said methodis reasonably safe where the relied-ofi sale transactions/ acquisitionsprecede the subjectacquisitionby,,only a few years, that is uptofour tofive years. Beyondthat it may be even ifit relatesto a neighbouringland. What may liablestandardif the gap is only afew years, may unsafe and unreliablestandardwhere the gap is For example,for determiningthe marketvalue ofa unsafe, be a re become larger. land acquired in 1992, adopting the annual increase with referenceto a sale or acquisitionin 1970 or 'oy have many pitfalls: This is because, over the ofyears, the "rate" of annual increase may itself undergo drastic change apart from the likelihood of occurrence of varyingperiods of stagnation in prices or sudden spurts in prices affecting the very standard of method 1980 w course increase.

¶19Being ilindful of the ratio of the decisionof the Apex Court in ONGC (supra), I find that the instance of institutional allotment of the year 2007 heavily relied upon, by the aiDpellants a useful guide to determine the market value of the land in i.', . question, as the said allotmentwas made after a period of three vears from the date ofacquisitionofthe land in question.It is so said because the sale exemplarofthe relevantperiodofthisveryvillagein questionis (EX.PW13/1) would not be LA.App.No. 115/2011 & connected Appeals of Village Bamnoli available. Therefore, the aforesaid instance of allotment of land to the PowerDepartmentofGovernmentof Delhi has been rightlyrejectedby the Reference Court. mat is required to be considered is whether the sale instance

¶20Now (Ex.R-1)relic;dupon bytheReferenceCourtis a comparableinstanceor •edly, sale instance(Ex.R-1)is ofthis very villageand is of )4 whereas the land in question was acquired vide 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 itinapplicableto determinethe marketvalueofthe acquiredlands. Findingofthe ReferenceCourtthat when the 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 document is acceptable in evidence and since this document has been tenderedin evidenceby the Respondents,the same can be read against them, remains unimpeachable.

¶21However,to meet the aforesaidfindingof the ReferenceCourt, it was submittedby learnedcounselfor the appellantsthat opportunityto lead rebuttalevidenceto showthat sale instance(Ex.R-1)is not reliable or bona fide, £.n application to lead rebuttal evidence was filed before the irt which was illegallyrejectedvide order of 25^*^ August, refore, this matter needs to be remanded back to the Reference Court to enable the appellantsto lead rebuttal evidence to demolishaforesaidsaleinstance(Ex.R-1). not. Undispu October, Notification Reference Co 2010 and the

¶22First of aforesaid sale all, appellants ought to have objected to the exhibition of instance(Ex.R-1).Havingnot done so, appellantshave to . face the legal consequences. Secondly, even if application of the LA.App.No. 115/2011& connectedAppealsof VillageBamnoii Page 12 of IS is not genuin

¶23In the , opinion that 1 (Ex.R-1) to d merit in the

¶24So far substance in acquired land the sale inst Regarding do block and 'B of the land wi the land with •

¶25Endorsi 'B' category recent decisio appellantsfcr leadingrebuttalevidencewas rejectedby the Reference Court,nothir^ghad stoppedthem from'movingan applicationfor leading additionalevidencein the appeal to lead evidencein orderto demolish the sale.instance (Ex.R-1). Not only this, even during the course of hearing,nothingwas urgedto show as to how the sale instalnce(Ex.R-1) s/reliableor comparable. light of the evidence on record, I ani' of the considered tie ReferenceCourthas rightlyrelieduponthe sale instance eterminethe marketvalueofthe acquiredlands.Findingno { nstant appeals of claimantsand cross-objectionby one of them, the same are dismissedwhile leavingthe partiesto beartheirown costs. as appeals of the Respondentsare concerned,I find no hem, becausethe determinationof the marketvalue ofthe by the ReferenceCourthas been done whilerelyingupon :ance (Ex.R-1) produced by the Respondentsthemselves, ing away ofthe classificationofthe acquiredland into 'A' Block by the ReferenceCourt 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 thouttop soil is boundto be lesserthanthe marketvalueof op soil. ng the pricedifferentiationbetween'A' categoryland and land, my esteemed brother Pradeep Nandrajog, J., in a nin LA.App.No.266/2008,titledas Jai Singh & Ors. vs. Union ofIndia&Ors., renderedon 23'"''August2011, whilerelyingon the decision ( Union ofIndi l^A.Ajjp.No. 115/2011 & CO f the Division Bench of this court in Gajraj Singh vs. I, 2006 (VI) AD Delhi 13, has held as under:- nnected Appealsof VillageBamnoli Page 13 of IS "56. worked hereina pertain price fi acre a. ^9,51,1 about land. 'h GajrajSingh'scase (supra), theprice differential out was ^25,000/- per acre. I have noted 'have that the acquisition in Gajraj Singh's case ed to thedate 15.11.1996.In GajrajSingh s case the wCategory 'A ' landdeterminedwas ^9,76,121/-per idfor Category 'B' land the price determinedwas 21/- per acre and the price differentialcomes•to

2.5% with reference to the price of Category 'A'

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

¶26Consequentially,the findingofthe ReferenceCourtregardingthe 'A' categoryand 'B' categoryland beingsimilarlysituatedhavingsame potentialityand becausethey are acquiredfor the same pubhc purpose, cannot be sus the claim of indicative "pri Appellant - L rejection.

¶27In view appeals filed elaimants and categoiy of L .ainedin the lightofthe aforesaidobservations.However, the Union of India, to seek adoption of the minimum -e of agriculturalland in Delhi while forgettingthat the OI itselfhas reliedupon the sale instance(Ex.R-1),merits ofthe,afore-goingnarration,I find thatno substanceinthe by claimantsas well, as in cross objectionof one of the the same are dismissed. So fir as the appeals filed by Union ofIndiaare concerned,the same are partlyallowedto the extent that the compensationawarded by the Reference Court for the 'B' inds (as noticed in the Award'of the Land Acquisition Collector)is reducedfrom?17,45,00.0peracreto m,61,3751-peracre:

2.8. Before; • brevity of th; judgment is -v LA.App.No. 115/2011 & co )artingthis order, I would like to bring on recordthat the s order is occasioned by the fact that the impugned ell consideredon facts and the law. Therefore,I have mectedAppealsof VillageBamnoli i i purposefullyrot adverted to the entire evidence on record and the relevant evidence, i.e. of the sale exemplars has been taken into considerationty mein thisorder. S , • .'

¶29The above captionedappealsand cross-objectionare disposedof with directionto the Registiyto remitthe compensationamount,ifany, depositedby eitherside with the RegistrarGeneralofthis Court,tothe concerned Reference Court. • , February 01, 2012 pkb/rs lA.App.No. 115/2011& connec:ed AppealsofVillageBamnoli JUDGE

* % + % IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI LA.APP. 507/2011 MAHABIR SINGH & ORS Through: versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR Through: Reserved on: January 12. 2012 Pronounced on: February PL 2012 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.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) Respondent 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.Kmial Sharma, Advocates for DDA in (R-74-77 & 80) Mr.Mohinder Singh Charak, Advocate (R-63 and 112) CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR