Union of India v. Dig Ram & Anr

ORDER

01.02.2012 Fororderssee LA.App.No.115/2011,titledasJai 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. • • (fr' =:< 0/, IGH COURT OF -DELHI AJ NEW DELHI, Reserved on: Januan> 12, 2011 • Pronounced on: February PL 2012 IN THE H + LA.APR 115/2011 (VILLAGE BAMNOLI) JAIPRAKASH Through: UMON OF LA.APP. 16/2011 LA.APP. 19/2011 LA.APP. 22/2011 LA.APP.90/|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.Mohinder Singh Charak, Advocate for appellant in R-112 and respondent in R-63 M-.B.D.Sharma, Mr.S.K.Rout, Mr.B.K.Routray, Mr.Vinay Kumar, Advocates in(R-84 to 86, 88-102, 104) Mr.S.K.Rout and JVfr.B.K.Routray,Advocates (in R-74 and for respondentoh R-79) versus NDIA&ANR. Respondents rhrOugh: 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,; 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). AND LA.APP. 17/2011 LA.APP. 18/2011 LA.APP.20/2011 •. LA.APP.21|/2011 LA.APP. 23/2011 LA.APP. 24/2011 LA.APP. 91/2011 : LA.APP. 92/2011 LA.APP. 94/2011 : LA.APP. 95/2011 LA.App.No. 115/2011& connectedAppealsof VillageBamnoii t rt T- -i' .*/: ii' iiiiipiSi ifiliSiiiiii \o I I jjiv 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. 115/2011 167/2011 171/2011 174/2011 8/2011 6/2011 2/2011 4/2011 7/2011 0/2011 263/2011 275/2011 29B/2011 304/2011 307/2011 310/2011 313/2011 316/2011 31^/2011 325/2011 355/2011 35^011 36^/2011 492/2011 49^/2011 499/2011 503/2011 506/2011 513/2011 573/2011 576/2011 /2011 '2011 280/2011 283/ 287, 2011 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 . 504/2011 . 507/2011 . 524/2011 .574/2011 , 577/2011 645/2011 278/2,011 281/2011 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. 306/2011 LA.APP. 309/2011 LA.APP. 312/2011 LA.A;PP. 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. 53!3/2011 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/132Uof 04.11.2004 issuedunderSection4ofthe LandAcquisitionAct 1894& Award No 1/2007-2008of06.08.2008,VillageBaVoli,NewbeM) LA.App.No. 115/2011&cc nnectedAppealsofVillageBamnoli CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR ORDER % ,

01.02.

¶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 L the Referen the rate of' the consent final hearii adjudicated

¶2Land fixed by Go and AcquisitionAct, 1894 and since the.impugned order of ce Court in these.appealsuniformlygrants 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 or ?15,70,000/-per acre ofleveled land in Block A, whereas for the acquired.land excavatedbeyond one meter, i.e., ]Block B land, compensationwas determinedat the rate of ?14,13,000/-per acre. atisfied with the aforesaid Award of Land Acquisition sfore the Reference Court, appellants/claimantshad relied nation of 24'*' October, 1994 issued by the Municipal of Delhi declaring the land in 20 villages including the ge to be urbanized. Rehance was. also placed upon of 16'^ October,2000 declaringchange of land use of the acquired land in questionand thereupon,Delhi DevelopmentAuthority had preparedZonalDevelopmentPlan for DwarkaSub City in Dwarka,

¶3Not j Collector, b upon Notifi Corporation instant villi Notification LA.App.No, ]15/2011& connectedAppealsofVillageBamnoli V New Delhi.

¶4Whil 3 relying upon seven sale instances (Ek.PW-1/7 to Ex.PW-1/13)ofthe year 1999,relatingto agriculturalland in VillagePochanpur purchased certified co Village Blvc Court upon >y a religious society - Radha Swami Satsang, Beas, and py of Sale Deed,of 2?"' September,2004 (Ex.PW-1/14)of irthal, enhancementin compensationwas sought. Reference evaluationof the evidence on record conclukedthat there was no evidenceto the effect that location,potentialand utility of the land in the had chosen instance of 1 commercial placing imp Villagesof Bharthal,Pochanpurand Bamnoliis similarand not to rely upon the aforesaid sale instances as the Sale his very village was available.

¶5In the absence of the evidence of; the Vendor/Vendeeof the aforesaid sale 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-land Ex.R-II)ofVillageBamnoli,ReferenceCourthad refused to apply Delhi DevelopmentAuthority auction rate for the plots or the scheduleof market rates for Vasant Vihar by icit reliance 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 undeveloped agricultural land in Delhi.

¶6.To fortifythe aforesaidfinding.ReferenceCourt has extensively quotedthe passagesfrom the Apex Courtdecisionin Lai Chand(supra) and thereafter,had proceededto discardheavilyreliedupon instanceof allotment of Authority to LA.App. No. 115/2011 &

14.5 acres of the acquired land by Delhi Development :he PowerDepartmentofGovernmentofNCT ofDelhi for onnectedAppealsof VillageBamnoli constmctio holding as under:- 1of 715 Mega Watt Gas Based Power PlantyProject,while "77. ^297 Buye of th prem ordin The allotmentof1.5 hectare oflandfor a premiumof 42 lakh per acre is an inter departmental allotment. ^ and seller both are agencies of state. Since no development/constructioncan take place on the land in questionwithoutpermissionof DDA in view of Section 12 Delhi Development Act, 1957 determination of mmfor allotmentofland in developmentarea is not an ary sale between a prudent buyer and seller. Premium of land in such an allotment cannot be called the market price of land which a prospectivebuyer of similar land sittinginhis armchairwouldbe willingtopay.

¶78date

04.11 the va to whi 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. Marketprice ofland allottedafter 3years ofNotification under Section 4 of LA Act cannot be taken into considerationfor determiningmarket value on the date of NotificationunderSection 4. As per Section24 ofLA Act, the Courtshallnot take into considerationany increaseto lue ofthe landacquiredlikelyto accruefrom the use 'ch it willbeput when required."

¶7On th(5 aspectofthe acquiredlandbeingdeclaredurbanizedand of being in the developmentzone, the pertinentfindings returned by the Reference Court are as under:-

¶94Landofpetitioneris agriculturallandalthoughit 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 country having explosive population, no residential colony, 'ed or unapprdvedcame up on the land in question wouldnegatepossibilityofland in questionhaving alfor buildingsite even in nearfuture. appro\ and it potent

¶95The petitionerhas broughtno evidence, leave aside documentaryevidencethat the acquiredland[wassuitable LA.App, No. 115/201] & onnectedAppealsof VillageBamnoli Page 5 of IS for putting up buildings, be they "residential or commercial or industrial as the case may be. There is no building activitystarted on the land in questioneven afterpassing of a decade since area was urbanized. "

¶8On the Court has take all four sides Siras. Noticin; DDA is deve] rates for agrici question of potentiality of the acquired land, Reference n note of the fact that this acquired land is surrounded on by Villages - Bharthal,Bijwasan, Pochanpurand Dhul I that acquired land is in the vicinity of Dwarka, where oping colonies and therefore, adoption of the minimum dturalland fixedbythe Governmentof Delhiby theLand AcquisitionCollectorwas not justified.Upon consideringthe two sale instancesof25^'' October,2004 (Ex.R-1)and of20"' April, 2004 (Ex.PL-2) of this vei7 village, Reference Court had discarded the sale instance (Ex.R-2) as sale considerationof^9,02,496per acre was found to be had chosen to rely; upon the sale instance (Ex.R-1) consideration of ?17,45,1.08 which was found to be depressed and depicting sale coinparable."

¶9In the ir appellants that :stant appeals, it was vehementlyurged on behalf of the the effectofNotificationof 24''" October, 1994 declaring the acquired lands being fit for urbanizationand Notificationof 16"' October,2000 -egardingthe changeofland use underthe MasterPlan of Delhi has not been consideredby the ReferenceCourt to appreciatethe true potentialofthe acquiredland. Reliancewas placedupon decisionof the Apex Court in SpecialLandAcquisitionOfficer& Am MJL RafiqSaheb,(2011)7SCC 714, by learnedcounselfor the appellantsto contend that ir view ofthe aforesaidNotifications,the acquired land cannotbe treatedas an agriculturalland for determinationof its market value.

¶10Aforesaidcontentionis noticedfor beingoutrightlyrejectedas the A.App.No,115/201] & connectedAppealsofVillageBamnoli; yf acquired lands may not to be termed as agricultural land but they were certainlyundeveloped. Government's minimum rates for the agricultural land applicable to Delhi have been rightly discarded by the-Reference Court. So, reliance placed upon M.K. Rafiq Saheb (supra), is clearly misplaced, as the Reference Court has determined the market value of and whilerelyingupon a sale exemplarofthis veryvillage. IS no question of discarding the aforesaid Notifications. In fact, inspite of the aforesaidNotificationsno developmentactivitywas there on the acquiredlands as no permissionwas soughtby the owners ofthe acquiredlandsunderDelhiDevelopmentAct and therefore,it can eluded that the acquiredlands were undevelopedand the ot be comparedwith developedlands for determiningthe ofthe acquiredland. Thus, relianceplaced by appellant's UdhoDass vs. StateofHaryana&Ors., 2010 (9) SCALE the acquired

¶11There be safely con same could n market value counsel upon 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 fully comparable with the aforesaid land and is in proximity and therefore,the marketvalueofthe acquiredlandoughtto have been fixed with referenceto the auctionrates ofthe DelhiDevelopmentAuthority. ReferenceCourthas not onlyreliedupon the decisionofApex Courtin Lai Chand vs. Union ofIndia and Am., (2009) 15 SCC 769 but has extensivelyqiioted relevant passages therefrom to hold that the sale considerationof the developedlands cannot be appliedto the acquired Ere undisputedly undeveloped. At the hearing in these lands which appeals, learn(;d counsel for the appellant could not distinguishthe Apex Court in Lai Chand(supra),whose ratio squarely decision of the LA.App.No. 115/2011 & coiinectedAppealsofVillageBamnoli ib applies to the instant cases. Therefore, I find that the Reference Court has rightlyrefusedto apply Delhi DevelopmentAuthorityauctionrates for determiningthemarketvalueoftheacquiredland.

¶13Whileleiteratingthe well settledprincipleoflaw that comparable , are the best piece of evidence to be consideredby the purposeof determiningthe compensation,Apex Court in ision in 'RadhaMudaliyar Vs, Special Tahsildar(Land amil Nadu Housing Board) (2010) 13 SCC 384 has sale instancef Court for the its recent dec Acquisition 'j observed as under:- "13. Comparablesales instancesare the safestmethodfor ining the market value of the acquired land and as '^vn in ShajiKuriakosev. Indian Oil Corpn. Ltd., it satisfy the factors, inter alia (1) the sale must be transaction;

(2) the :sale deed must have been d at the time proximateto the date of issuanceof ition underSection4 of theAct; (3) the land covered ^ale must be in the vicinityofthe acquiredland; (4) the land^coveredby the sale m.ustbe similarto the acquired landand (j) size oftheplotofthe landcoveredby the sale be comparableto the acquired land The sales instances shouldpreferablybe closestto the date ofnotificationas then alcne it wouldsatisfythe touchstoneoftheprinciples contemplatedunder Section 23 of the Act, as held i determi laid do^ should genuine executet notifica by the s Kanwar

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

¶15On the a market value o in iforesaidreasoning,adoptionofthe L&DO rates to fix the )fthe acquiredlands soughtby the appellantsis outrightly rejected. Appellants' counsel had rehed upon decision of the Apex L^.App.No. ]15/2011&coiuiectedAppealsofVillageBamnoli Page8of15 Court in Kiran Tandon vs. Allahabad Development Authority, (2004) 10 see 745 and in Valliyammal and Anr vs. Special Tehsildar (Land and Am., AIR 2011 SC 2937 to assert that deduction of developmentcharges was improper and where large"area, sloped, is acquired, normally, deduction of about 33%' is The need to look for sale instances in the vicinity'is ^ew of the fact that the sale instancesof the instantvillage and 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 Acquisition) 40% towards not fully dev permissible, obviated in v: are available is of no conse

¶16During allotment is compensation be at par wit Government o

¶17To meet i^uence. the course of hearing, learned counsel for the appellants had stronglyreliedupon the instanceof allotmentof 14.5 hectares(37 acres approximately)by Delhi DevelopmentAuthority to the Power Departmentof Delhi Governmenton leaseholdbasis at a consideration of t297.42 lacs per acre with 2.5% annual ground rent to claim enliancementof compensationat the rate oi^40lacsper acre over and abovethe marketvalue fixed by the ReferenceCourtas the allotmentof the aforesaidlandwas out ofthe acquiredland. Withmuch vehemence, It was assertedby learned counsel for the appellantsthat the aforesaid clearly comparable and therefore, on its basis the ought to be enhancedwhile treatingthe acquiredland to 1 the aforesaid land•allotted to Power Department of ^"Delhi. the aforesaidstand of the appellants,it was pointedout by learnedsenior counsel for the Respondentsthat aforesaidallotment by Delhi DevelopmentAuthorityto Power Departmentof Government LA.App.No. 115/201] & cornectedAppealsofVillageBamnoli Page 9,of 15 of Delhi was made in November, 2007 and the possession of the a;foresaidland was handed over to the Power Department of Government of Delhi in February, 2008 and the acquisition of the land in question is of November, 2004 and during the interveningperiod land rates had steadily increased and therefore, aforesaid allotment cannot be made the basis to determine the market value of the acquired land as the intervening gap is of three years.

¶18The factors to be considered to determine the market value of the acquiredlands as reiteratedby the Apex Gourtin GeneralManager,Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd vs. Rameshbhai Jivanbhai Pate! and \Anr, (2008) 14 SGG 745, are as under:- "13. Primarily, the increase in land prices depends on fourfactors:situationofthe land, natureofdevelopmentin surroundingarea, availabilityof landfor developmentin the area, and the demandfor land in the area. In rural mless there is any prospectof developmentin the increase in prices would be slow, steady and , withoutany suddenspurts orjumps. On the other areas, vicinity^, gradua hand, in urbanor semi-urbanareas, where the development , wherethe demandfor landis high andwherethere auction activity all around, the escalation in market at a much higherrate, as 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 ' | 'i'' '

¶14On the other extreme, in remote rural areas where there wis no chance ofany 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 urbar/semi-urbanareasandincreasesin marketvalueof the ruralareas. Therefore,ifthe increasein market urban/semi-urbanareas is about 10% to 15%per annum, the correspondingincreasesin rural areas wouldat isfaster is const price is In some lands in value in LA.App,No. 115/2011& coinectedAppealsofVillageBamnoli 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 he applied would depend upon the same. sudden increase.

¶19Being i

¶15Normally, recourse is taken to the mode of determining the market value by providing appropriate escalation over the proved 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 subjeoiacquisitionby only afew years, that is uptofour tofive years. Beyondthat it may be unsafe, even if it relates to a neighbounngland. What may be a reliablestandardif the gap is only afew years, may becom.e unsafe and unreliablestandard where 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 from the likelihood of occurrenceof varynngperiods of stagnation in prices or spurts in prices affecting the very.standard of lindflilof the ratio of the decisionof the Apex Court in ONGC (supra), I find that the instance of institutional allotment I ' (EX.PW13/1) of the year 2007 heavily rehed upon by the appellants wouldnot be a 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 relevantperiodofthisveiyvillageiii questionis LA.App. No. 115/2011 & ccnnected Appeals of Village Bamnoli Of) a-/ available. Therefore, the aforesaid instance of allotment of land to the Power Department of Govermnent of Delhi has been rightly rejected by the Reference Court. Vhat is required to be considered is whether the sale instance

¶20Now v\ (Ex.R-1) relied upon by the Reference Court is a comparable instance or edly, sale instance (Ex.R-1) is of this very village and is of )4 whereas the land in question was acquired vide of November, 2004. Evidently, aforesaid sale instance (Ex.R-1)is not only relevantbut is comparableas it has not been shown by the appellantsas to what are the distinguishingfeatureswhich would make it inapplicableto determinethe marketvalue ofthe acquiredlands. Findingofthe ReferenceCourtthatwhen the sale instance(Ex.R-1)was exhibitedno objectionwas raisedby the claimantsand as per section51-icquisition Act, 1894, a certified copy of a registered icceptable in evidence and since this document has been idence by the Respondents,the same can be read against unimpeachable. .

¶21However,to meet the aforesaidfindingofthe ReferenceCourt, it was submittedby learnedcounselfor the appellantsthat opportunityto lead rebuttalevidenceto show that sale instance(Ex.R-l')is not reliable orbonafide, em applicationto leadrebuttalevidencewas filed beforethe art which was illegallyrejectedvide orderofis'*' August, not. Undispu October, Notification A of Land , document is tendered in e^ them, remains Reference Co 2010 and therefore, this matter needs to be remanded back to the urt to enable the appellants to lead rebuttal evidence to Reference Co demolishaforesaidsale instance(Ex.R-1).

¶22First of aforesaid sale face the legs LA.App. No. 115/2011 & co all, appellantsought to have objectedto the exliibitionof instance(Ex.R-1).Havingnot done so, appellantshave to 1 consequences. Secondly, even if application of the nnected Appeals of Village Bamnoli appellants fcr leading rebuttal evidence was,-rejectedby the Reference Court,nothirighad stoppedthem from movingan applicationfor leading additional evidence in the appeal to lead evidence in 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/reliableor comparable.

¶23In the light of the evidence on record, I am of the considered opinionthat the ReferenceCourthas rightlyreliedupon the sale instance (Ex.R-l).to d merit in the them, the san costs.

¶24So far substance in acquired land the sale inst£ Regarding do block and 'B this classifica ^2/ eterminethe marketvalueofthe acquiredlands.Findingno nstant appeals of claimantsand cross-objectionby one of le are dismissedwhile leavingthe partiesto beartheir own as appeals of the Respondentsare concerned,I find no hem, becausethe determinationof the marketvalue of the by the ReferenceCourthas been done whilerelyingupon mce (Ex.R-1) produced by the Respondents,themselves, .ng away ofthe classificationofthe acquiredland into 'A' Block by the ReferenceCourt is concerned,I find that ion has a reasonablebasis. That is to say, land with top soil and the landwithouttop soil cannotbe put at par as the marketvalue houttop soil is boundto be lesserthanthe marketvalueof op soil. , ng the pricedifferentiationbetween'A' categoryland and land, my esteemed brother Pradeep Nandrajog, J.. in, a 1in LA.App.No.266/2008,titledas Jai Singh &Ors. vs. Union ofIndia&Ors., renderedon 23'"''August2011, whilerelyingon the decision of the DivisionBench of this court in Gajmj Singh ra. hnionofIndia, 2006 (VI) AD Delhi 13,-hasheld as under of the land wi the land with •

¶25Endorsi 'B' category recent decisio LA.App. No. 115/2011 & connectedAppealsof VillageBamnoli Page 13 of IS "56. In Gajraj Singh's case (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 Category 'A ' landdeterminedwas t9,76,121/-per id for Category 'B' land the price determined was 21/- per acre and the price differential comes to

2.5% with reference to the price of Category 'A' acre a. ^9,51,1 about 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 'B'and Category 'C have to be differentiatedonprice, the differential should be 2.5%." '

¶26Consequentially,the findingofthe ReferenceCourtregardingthe 'A' categoryand 'B'- categoryland beingsimilarlysituatedhavingsame potentialityand becausethey are acquiredfor the same publicpurpose, .ainedin the light ofthe aforesaidobservations.However, the Union of India, to seek adoption of the minimum :e of agriculturalland in Delhi while forgettingthat the cannot be sus the claim of indicative' pri Appellant - U , rejection.

¶27In view appeals filed claimants and OI itselfhas reliedupon the sale instance(Ex.R-1),merits oftheafore-goingnarration,I find thatno substancein the by claimantsas well as in cross objectionof one ofthe the same are dismissed. So far as the appeals filed by UnionofIndiaare concerned,the same are partlyallowedto the extent that the compensationawarded by tlie Reference Court for the 'B' category ofhnds (as noticed in the Award of the Land Acquisition Collector)is reducedfrom?17,45,000peracreto ^11 peracre.

¶28Beforepartingthis order,Iwould like to bringon recordtliat the brevity of th|s order is occasioned by the fact that the impugned judgment is well consideredon facts and the law. Therefore,I have LA.App.p. 115/20]1&comectedAppealsofVillageBamnoli purposefully r[Qt adverted to the entire evidence on record and the relevant evidence, i.e. of the sale exemplars has been jtaken into consideration by me in this order. captionedappeals and cross-objectionare disposedof othe Registryto remitthe compensationamount,ifany, depositedby eitherside with the RegistrarGeneralofthis Court;,to the concerned Reference Court.

¶29The abo with direction February 01, 2012 pkb/rs LA.App.-No.115/2011& connected AppealsofVillageBamnoli JUDGE

+ % IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI LA.APP. 313/2011 UNION OF INDIA Tluough: versus DIG RAM & ANR Through; Reserved on: January 12. 2012 Pronounced on: February 01. 2012 Appellant Mr.SanjayPoddar,SeniorAdvocatewithMr.Sanjay Pathak,Ms.NavlinSwain,Ms.K.K.Kiranand Mr.S.N.Pandey,Advocatesfor UOI Mr. YeeshuJain,AdvocateforUOI (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.Sethiand Mr.KimalSharma,Advocates forDDA in (R-74-77 & 80) Mr.MohinderSinghCharak,Advocate(R-63 and 112) Respondent Mr.B.S.Maan,Mr.AmitMaan,Mr.R.S.Verma,Mr.Jai Prakash,Ms.SmitaMaan and Mr.JitinTewathia, Advocates(R-14-16,22, 30, 34, 38-45,51-53) Mr.MohinderSinghCharak,Advocatefor appellantin R-112 and respondent in R-63 Mr.B.D.Sharma, Mr.S.K.Rout, Mr.B.K.Routray, Mr.VinayKumar,Advocatesin (R-84to 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