Union of India v. Ram Kishan & Ors

ORDER

01.02.2012 ForordersseeLA.App.No.115/2011,titledasJai Prakashys. UnionofIndia & Anr. FEBRUARY 01, 2012 pkb 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 HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI , Reserved oh; January 12, 2011 Pronounced on:, February 01, 2012 LA.APP. 115/2011(VILLAGE BAMNOLI) JAI PRAKA SH ..... Appellant 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 respondenton R-79) versus NDIA&ANR. Respondents Through: Mr.Sanjay Poddar, Senior Advocate with Mr.Sanjay Pathak, Ms.Navlin Swain, Ms.K.K.Kiran and 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.Arun Birbal, Mr.Banlcey Bihari Sharma, Ms.Amita Singh, Mr.S.K.Sethi and Mr.Kunal Sharma, Advocates for DDA in (R-74-77 & 80) Mr.Mohinder Singh Charak, Advocate (R-63 and 112) AND UNION OF LA.APP. 16/2011 LA. APR 19/2011 LA.APP. 22/2011 LA.APP. 90/2011 LA.APP. 93/2011 LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. 1-7/2011 20/201.1' 23/2011 91/2011 94/2011 LA,APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. IvA.APP. 18/2011 21/2011 24/2011 92/2011 95/2011 LA.App.No. 115/2011& connectedAppealsofVillageBamnoli I if: k K;. A? 115/2011 167/2011 1/2011 4/2011 8/2011 6/2011 2/2011 '4/2011 7/2011 0/2011 26B/2011 275/2011 29^/2011 304/2011 307/2011 310/2011 313/2011 316/2011 319/2011 325/2011 355/2011 358/2011 36^/2011 492/2011 49^2011 499/2011 .17 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. 503 /2011 506/2011 513/2011 573/2011 576/2011 /2011 '2011 '2011 2011 2011 196/ 280/ 287/ 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 278/2011 281/2011 284/2011 288/2011 LA.APP. 166/2011 LA.APP. 170/2011 LA.APP. 173/2011 LA.A.PP. 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.2,86/2011 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) (Relatingto NotificationNo.9(50)/2004/L&B/LA/13211of 04.11.2004 issuedunder Section4ofthe LandAcquisitionAct, 1894 & AwardNo. 1/2007-2008of06.08.2008,VillageBamnoli,;,NewDelhi) LA,App, No. 115/2011 & ccmnectedAppealsofVillageBamnoli % % CORAM: HON'BLE

¶1Abo\ of about Planned De MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR ORDER

01.02.2012 e captioned appeals and cross-objections relate to acquisition 00 bighas of land in Village Bamnoli, Delhi notified for velopmentof Delhi vide Notificationof 4"^ November,2004 under the Land AcquisitionAct, 1894 and since the impugnedorder of. the ReferenceCourt in these appealsuniformlygrants compensationat n7,45,000 per acre with statutorybenefits, therefore,with of learned counsel for the parties, who were present at the final hearing, these matters were heard together and are being the rate of •the consent adjudicated

¶2Land fixed by Go upon by this common order. AcquisitionCollectorwhilerelyinguponthe indicativeprice 3vemment of NCT of Delhi for agricultural land in Delhi for the period hi question,had determinedthe marketvalue ofthe acquired land in questionat the aforesaidrate or ^15,70,000/-per acre ofleveled land in Blo('k A, whereas for the acquiredland excavatedbeyond one meter, i.e., ]31ock B land, compensationwas determinedat the rate of ?14,13,000/-per acre.

¶3Not satisfied with the aforesaid Award of Land Acquisition Collector, b upon Notifi Corporation instant vill; Notification 3fore the Reference Court, appellants/claimantshad relied cation of 24^'^- October, 1994 issued by the Municipal of Delhi declaring the land in 20 villages including the Lge 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 preparedZonalDevelopmentPlan for DwarkaSub City in Dwarka, LA.App,No. 115/20] 1 & connectedAppealsof VillageBamnoli New Delhi.

¶4While-relying upon seven sale instances (Ex.PW-1/7 to Ex.PW-1/13)ofthe year 1999,relatingto agriculturalland in VillagePochanpur purchased by a religious society - Radha Swami Satsang, Beas, and py of Sale Deed ofif' September,2004 (Ex.PW-1/14)of certified co VillageBharthal,enhancementin compensationwas sought. Reference Court upon evaluation of the evidence on record-concluded that there was no evidenceto the effect that location,potentialand utility of the land in the Villagesof Bharthal,Pochanpurand Bamnoliis similarand not to rely upon the aforesaid sale instances as the Sale his very village'was available. M absence of the evidence of the Vendor/Vendee of the le instances, Reference Court had discarded the aforesaid sale instancesreliedupon by the appellants/claimants,while advertingto paragiaphno: 29 ofthe Apex Courtdecisionin Lai Chandra. Union of India and Am., (2009) 15 SCC 769. Before dealing with the sale instances(Ex.R-Iand Ex.R-II)ofVillageBamnoli,ReferenceCourthad a'^sfused to apply Delhi Development,Authority auctionjrate for the had chosen instance of 1

¶5In th aforesaid sa commercial placing imp 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.

¶6To fortifythe aforesaidfinding, ReferenceCourt has extensively quotedthe passagesfrom the Apex Courtdecisionin Lai Chand(supra) and thereafter,had proceededto discardheavilyreliedupon instanceof

14.5 acres of the acquired land by Delhi Development ;he PowerDepartmentofGovernmentofNCT ofDelhi for allotment of Authority to LA.App. No. 115/201] & onnectedAppealsof VillageBamnoli I constructio holding as under:- a of 715 Mega Watt Gas Based Pov\/^er Plant/Project,while "77. ^297 Buye appro\ and it The allotmentof1.5 hectareoflandfor apremhimof 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 of the Delhi Development Act, 1957 determination of premiumfor allotmentofland in developmentarea is not an ordinarysale betweenaprudentbuyerandseller.Premium of land in such an allotment cannot be called the market price of land which a prospectivebuyer of similar land sittinginhis armchairwouldbe willingtopay.

¶78Moreover,there is a time gap of threeyears between date of Notificationunder Section 4 of LA Act which is

04.11.2004 and date of allotment which is 25.11.2007. Marketprice of land allottedafter 3 years of Notification 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 consideration-any increaseto the value ofthe landacquiredlikely to accruefrom the use to which it willbeput when required."

¶7Onthe aspectofthe acquiredlandbeingdeclaredurbanizedand of being in the developmentzone, the pertinentfindings returned by the Reference Court are as under '94. Landofpetitioneris agriculturallandalthoughit is in urbanized area and in development zone. 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 country having explosive population, no residential colony, 'ed or unapprovedcame up on the land in question would negatepossibilityofland in questionhaving potentialfor buildingsite even in nearfuture.

¶95The petitionerhas broughtno evidence, leave aside documentaryevidencethat the acquiredland was suitable LA.App. No. 115/201] & connected Appeals of Village Bamnoli I for putting up buildings, be they residential or cpmmercial or industrial as the case may be. There is no building activitystarted on the land in question even afterpassing of a decade since area was urbanized. " 8". On the question of potentiality of the acquired land, Reference Court has taken note of the fact that this acquired land is surrounded on all four sides by Villages-Bharthal, Bijwasan, Pochanpur and Dhul Siras. Noticing that acquired land is in the vicinity of Dwarka, where DDA is developing colonies and therefore, adoption of the minimum rates for agriculturalland fixedbythe Governmentof Delhi by 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 vei7 village, Reference Court had discarded the sale instance (Ex.R-2) as sale considerationof ^9,02,496per acre was found to be depressed and had chosen to rely upon the sale instance (Ex.R-1) depicting sale consideration of 7,45,1.08 which was found to be comparable."

¶9In the instant appeals, it was vehementlyurged on behalfof the appellantsthat the effectofNotificationof 24'" October, 1994 declaring the acquired lands being fit for urbanization,and Notificationof 16"' October,2000 ::egardingthe changeofland use underthe MasterPlan of Delhi has not been consideredby the ReferenceCourtto appreciatethe true potentialofthe acquiredland. Reliancewas placedupon decisionof the Apex Court in SpecialLandAcquisitionOfficer Am vs. M.IC RafiqSaheb,(2011)7SCC 714, by learnedcounselfor the appellantsto contend that ir view ofthe aforesaidNotifications,the acquired land cannotbe treatedas an agriculturallapd for determinationof its market value.

¶10Aforesaidcontentionis noticedfor beingoutrightlyrejected as the LA.App,No. 115/201]& con;iectedAppealsofVillageBamnoli aT % acquired lands may not to be termed as agricultural land but they were certainlyundeveloped.Government'sminimumrates 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 andwhilerelyingupon a sale exemplarof this veryvillage, s no question of discarding the aforesaid Notifications. In fact, inspite of the aforesaidNotificationsno developmentactivitywas there on the acquiredlands as no peniiissionwas soughtby the owners ofthe acquired landsunderDelhiDevelopmentAct and therefore,it can be safely concludedthat the acquiredlands were undevelopedand the ot be comparedwith developedlands for determiningthe of the acquiredland. Thus, relianceplaced by appellant's UdhoDass vs. StateofHaryana & Ors., 2010 (9) SCALE the acquired

¶11There 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(jlfor the appellantsby contendingthatthe acquiredland is fully comparable with the aforesaid land and is in proximity and therefore,the inarketvalueofthe acquiredlandoughtto hav^ been fixed with referenceto the auctionrates ofthe Delhi DevelopmentAuthority. ReferenceCourthas not only reliedupon the decisionofApex Courtin Lai Chand V5, Union ofIndia and Am., (2009)'15 SCC 769 but has extensivelyquoted relevant passages therefrom to hold that the sale considerationof the developedlands cannot 15e appliedto the acquired lands which £,re undisputedlyundeveloped. At the hearing in these appeals, learned counsel for the appellant could not distinguishthe Apex Court in Lai Chand(supra),whose ratio squarely decision of the :LA.App.No. 115/2011 & cor nectedAppealsofVillageBatnnoli I applies to th(; instant cases. Therefore,I find that the Reference Court has rightlyrefusedto apply DelhiDevelopmentAuthorityauctionrates for determiningthe marketvalueofthe acquiredland.

¶13While]-eiteratingthe well settledprincipleoflaw that comparable sale instances,are the best piece of evidenceto be consideredby the Court for the purposeofdeterminingthe compensation,Apex Court in its recent decjisionin RadhaMudaliyarVs. SpecialTahsildar(Land Acquisition Tamil Nadu Housing Board) (2010) 13 SCC 384 has observed as under:- "13. Comparablesales instancesare the safestmethodfor determi laid do should genuine execute notifica, ning the marketvalue 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 i at the time proximateto the date of issuanceof Hon under Section4 of theAct; (3) the land covered by the sale must be in the vicinityofthe acquiredland; (4) the land^coveredby thesale m.ustbe similarto the acquired landand.(5) size oftheplotofthe landcoveredby the sale be comparableto the acquired land. The sales instances shouldpreferablybe closest to the date ofnotificationas then alcne it wouldsatisfythe touchstoneoftheprinciples contemplatedunder Section 23 of the Act, as held in KanwarSinghvs. 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 s^le instancesofthis very villageare available.When it is so, then there is no need to look for the sale instancesofthe adjoining villages. On the aforesaidreasoning,adoptionofthe L&DO rates to fix the .marketvalueofthe acquiredlandssoughtby the appellantsis outrightly rejected. Appellants' counsel had relied upon decision of the Apex LA.App.No. ]15/2011&connectedAppealsofVillageBaranoli Page8of15 % Court in Kiran Tandon vs. Allahabad DevelopmentAuthority, (.2004) and in Valliyammal and Anr vs. Special Tehsildar (Land and Am., AIR 2011 SO 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 instances of the instant village and so the requirementof consideringthe applicabilityof 10 see 745 Acquisition) 40% towards not fully dev permissible, obviated in v are available the sale instaices(Ex.PW-1/7to Ex.PW-1/14)would arise only when sale instance (Ex.Rr-1) is found to be not comparable. Therefore, referenceto the aforesaiddecisionsby learnedcounselfor the appellants is of no consequence. the course of hearing, learned counsel for the appellants

¶16During had stronglylelied upon the instanceof allotmentof 14.5 hectares(37 mately) by Delhi DevelopmentAuthority to the Power f Delhi Governmenton leasehoidbasis a,t a consideration of t297.42 lacs per acre with 2.5% annual ground rent to claim enliancementofcompensationat the rate of^40 lacsper acre over and ket value fixed by the ReferenceCourt as the allotmentof the aforesaidland was out ofthe acquiredland. With much 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 pointed out ior counsel for the Respondentsthat aforesaidallotment acres approxi Department o allotment is compensation be at par wit Government o;

¶17To meet by learned sen by Delhi DevelopmentAuthorityto Power Departmentof Government LA.App.No. 115/2011 & cor nectedAppealsofVillageBamnoli % of Delhi was made in November, 2007 and the possession of the aforesaid land 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 steadily incre and Natural i Am, (2008) 1 F "13. four fac , 2004 and during the intervening period land rates had ased 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.

1.8. The factors to be considered to determine the market value of the acquired lands as reiterated by the Apex Court in General Manager, Oil jas Corporation Ltd vs. Rameshbhai Jivanbhai Patel and 4 see 745, are as under:- Primarily, the increase in land prices depends on tors: situation of the land, nature ofdevelopment in surrounding area, availability of land for developmentin the area, and the demandfor land in the area. In rural areas, unless there is any prospect of development in the vicinity, increase in prices would be slow, steady and gradual, withoutany suddenspurts orjumps. On the other hand, in urbanorsemi-urbanareas, where the development isfaster, wherethe demandfor landis high and M'herethere is const'^uction activity all around, the escalation in market price is at a much higherrate, as comparedto rural areas. Insomepocketsin 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

¶14Cn the other extreme, in remote rural areas where there was no chance of any developmentand hardlj> any buyers, thepricesstagnatedforyears or rose marginallyat a nomir'.alrate of 1% or 2% per annum. There is thus a significantdifferencein increasesin marketvalue oflands in urba?'./semi-urbanareasandincreasesin marketvalueof lands in ' value in annum. the rural areas. 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& coinectedAppealsofVillageBamnoli I nmetiei evidenc special any sp prices, the same. unsafe. 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 to be adopted in the absence of clear and specific e relating to increase in prices. Where there are reasons for applying a higher rate of increase, or ecific evidence relating to the actual increase in then the increase to be applied would depend upon

¶15Wormally, recourse is taken to the mode of determi^ning the market value by providing appropriate escalation over the proved market value of nearby lands in previou^s 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/ acquisitions precede the subject acquisition by only a few years, that is uptofour tofive years. Beyond that it may be even if it relates to a neighbouring land. What may be a reliable standard if the gap is only a few years, may becom.e larger. unsafe and unreliable standard where the gap is For example,for determiningthe market value of a land acquired in 1992, adopting the annual increase methodwith reference to a sale or acquisition in 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 occurrence of varyingperiods of stagnation in prices or spurts in prices affecting the very, standard of sudden increase.

¶19Being riindfulofthe 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 land in question, as the said allotmentwas made after a period of three years from the date afacquisitionofthe land in question.It is so said because the sale exemplarofthe relevantperiodofthisveryvillagein questionis LA.App. No. 115/2011 & ccnnectedAppealsof VillageBamnoli Page Ij of 15 I available. Therefore, the aforesaid instance of allotment of land to the Power Department of Government of Delhi has been rightly rejected by the Reference Court.

¶20Now What is required to be considered is whether the sale instance (Ex.R-1) relied upon by the Reference Court is a comparable instance or not. Undispu October, Notification edly, sale instance (Ex.R-1) is of this ver^^ 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 relevant but is comparable as it has not been shown by the appellants as to what are the distinguishing features which would make it inapplicable to determine the market value of the acquired lands. Finding of the Reference Court that when the sale instance (Ex.R-1) was exhibited no objection was raised by the claimants and as per section 51-A of Land Acquisition Act, 1894, a certified copy of a registered docurnent is icceptable 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 aforesaidfinding of the ReferenceCourt, it was submittedby learnedcounsel for the appellantsthat opportunityto lead rebuttaleividenceto show that sale instance(Ex.R-1)is not reliable or bona fide, an application to lead rebuttal evidence was filed before the art which was illegallyrejectedvide order of 25"' August, refore, this matter needs to be remanded back to the urt to enable the appellants to lead rebuttal evidence to demolishaforesaidsaleinstance(Ex.R-1). ! Reference Co 2010 and the Reference Co

¶22First of aforesaid sale face the legs LA:App. No. 115/2011 & CO all, appellants ought to have objected to the exhibitionof instance(Ex.R-1).Havingnot done so, appellantshave to 1 consequences. Secondly, even if application of the nnected Appeals of Village Bamnoli n appellants fcir leading rebuttal evidence was rejected by the Reference Court,nothir.g had stoppedthem from movingan applicationfor leading additionale-videncein 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) !/reliable or comparable. light of the evidence on record, I am of the considered opinionthattheReferenceCourthas rightlyreliedupon the sale instance sterminethe marketvalue of the acquired lands.Findingno instant appeals of claimantsand cross-objectionby one of , them, the same are dismissedwhile leavingthe partiesto bear their OM^n - costs. as appeals of the Respondents are concerned, I find no hem, because the determination of the market value of the by the ReferenceCourthas been done whilerelyingupon is not genuine

¶23In the (Ex.R-1) to d merit in the

¶24So far substance in acquired lane the sale instance (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 a reasonablebasis. That is to say, land with top soil and the landwithouttop soil cannotbe put atpar as the marketvalue thouttop soil is bound to be lesser than the market value of op soil.

¶25Endorsingthe price differentiationbetween'A' categoryland and Regarding do block and 'B of the land wi the land with 'B' category land, my esteemed brother Pradeep Nandrajog, J., in a recentdecisionin LA.App.No.266/2008,titledas Jai Singh &Ors. vs. .1 Union ofIndia Ors., renderedon 23'"' August2011, while relyingon •the decision ( Union ofIndi •• LA.App.No. 115/2011& CO f the Division Bench of this court in Gajraj Singh vs. %, 2006 (VI) AD Delhi 13,.has held as under:- nnected Appealsof VillageBamnoli 2^ "56. GajrajSingh'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 Category 'A ' landdeterminedwas ^9,76,121/-per acre and for Category 'B' land theprice determinedwas ^9,51,121/-per acre and the price differentialcomes to about 2.5% with reference to the price of Category 'A' land.

¶57I guiding well arh 'B' and dijfere. 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 differentiatedonprice, the •ntial 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 indicativepiice of agriculturalland in Delhi while forgettingthat the OI itselfhas reliedupon the sale instance(Ex.R-1),merits cannot be sus the claim of Appellant - L rejection.

¶27In view appeals filed claimants and ofthe,afore-goingnarration,I find thatno substanceinthe 3y claimants as well as in cross objectionof one of the 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' categoiy of lands (as noticed in the Award of the Land Acquisition Collector)is reducedfrom?17,45,000peracreto ^17,01,375/-peracre.

¶28Before])artingthis 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& co inectedAppealsofVillageBaranoli purposefullyrot adverted to the entire evidence on record and the relevant evidence, i.e. of the sale exemplars ha:s .been taken into consideration by me in this order. ^e captionedappeals and cross-objectionare disposedof o the Registryto remitthe compensationamount,ifany, depositedby eitherside with the RegistrarGeneralofthis Court, to the concerned Reference Court.

¶29The abo with direction February 01, 2012 pkb/rs •I'.A App.No. 115/2011& connected AppealsofVillageBamnoli JUDGE

% IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Rfisarved on: January 12, 2012 Pronounced on: February PL 2012 + LA.APP. 321/2011 % UNION OF INDIA Through: versus RAM KISHAN & ORS Through: Appellant Mr.SanjayPoddar,SeniorAdvocatewithMr.Sanjay Pathalc,Ms.NavlinSwain,Ms.K.K.Kiranand Mr.S.N.Pandey,AdvocatesforUOI Mr YeeshuJain,Advocatefor UOI (R-1 to 5, 18-37, 47,49,50-52,55-73,75-81,113-123 Mr.ArunBirbal,Mr.BanlceyBihariSharraa,Ms.Amita Singh,Mr.S.K-Sethiand Mr.KunalSharma,Advocates for DDA 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.SmitaMaanandMr.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