Union of India v. Vijay Kumar & Anr

ORDER

01.02.2012 For orders see LA.App. No.l 15/2011, titled as Jai Prakash vs. UnionofIndia & Anr. FEBRUARY 01, 2012 pkb fIL 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. % V-" IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on: January 12. 2011 Pronounced on: February 01, 2012 LA.APP. 115/2011(VILLAGEBAMNOLI) JAI PRAKASH Through: LA.APR 16/2011 LA. APP. 19/2011 LA.APP. 22/2011 LA.APP. 90/2011 I.A.APP. 93/2011 Appellant 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 appellantin R-112 and respondentin 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.Routand Mr.B.K.Routray,Advocates (in R-74 and for respondentonR-79) . versus UNIONOt INDIA&ANR. Respondents Through: Mr.SanjayPoddar, Senior Advocatewith Mr.Sanjay Pathak, Ms.Navlin Swain, Ms.K.K.Kiranand 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.ArunBirbal,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) AND LA.APP. 17/2011 LA.APP. 20/2011 LA.APP. 23/2011 LA.APP. 91/2011 LA.APP. 94/2011 LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. I.A.APP, I.A.App No. i15/20!1& connectedAppealsofVillageBamiioli 18/2011 21/2011' 24/2011 92/2011 95/2011 Page I of 15

¶5aAfe • -•l.V I \T l- .v.:- iT." I m-I f I' V-115/2011 167/2011 171/2011 174/2011 178/2011 186/2011 192/2011 204/2011 207/2011 210/2011 263/2011 275/2011 293/2011 304/2011 307/2011 310/2011 313/2011 3^16/2011 319/2011 325/2011 355/2011 358/2011 364/2011 492/2011 495/2011 499/2011 503/2011 .506/2011 ,513/2011 573/2011 576/2011 592/2011 196/2011 280/2011 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. 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 ^A^P. 305/2011 iXapp: 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. 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.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 A.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 Section4ofthe LandAcquisitionAct, 1894& AwardNo. 1/2007-2008of06.08.2008,VillageBamnoli,NewDelhi) I.A.App,No. 115/2011&connectedAppealsofVillageBamnoli % CORAM: HON'BLEMR. JUSTICESUNILGAUR QRDE R

01.02.2012

¶1Abovecaptionedappealsand cross-objectionsrelateto acquisition of about 2100 bighas of land in Village Bamnoli, Delhi notified for PlannedDevelopmentofDelhi videNotificationof4«' November,2004 under the LandAcquisitionAct. 1894 and since the impugnedorderof the ReferenceCourt in these appealsuniformlygrantscompensationat the rate of?17,45,000;.eracre with statutorybenefits,therefore,with the consentof learnedcounselfor the parties,who were presentat the final hearing, these matters were heard together and are being adjudicatedupon by this commonorder.

¶2LandAcquisitionCollectorwhilerelyinguponthe indicativeprice fixed by GovernmentofNCT ofDelhi for agriculturalland in Delhi for the periodmquestion,had deteminedthe marketvalueofthe acquired landmquestionat the aforesaidrateof?15,70,000/-peracreofleveled land in Block A. whereasfor the acquiredland excavatedbeyondone meter, i.e.. BlockBland, compensafionwas determinedat the rate of ^14,13,000/-peracre.

¶3Not satisfied with the aforesaid Award of Land Acquisition Collector,before the ReferenceCourt, appellants/claimantshad relied upon Notification of 24'" October, 1994 issued by the Municipal Corporationof Delhi declaringthe land in 20 villages includingthe mstant village to be urbanised. Reliance was also placed upon otificationof 16'^ October,2000 declaringchangeof land use of the acquiredland in questionand thereupon,Delhi DevelopmentAuthority' had preparedZonalDevelopmentPlanfor DwarkaSub Cityin Dwarka I.A.APP.NO,n5,20n&connectedAppealsofVillage New Delhi.

¶4While relying upon seven sale instances(Ex.PW-1/7to Ex.PW-1/13)ofthe year 1999,relatingto agriculturalland in VillagePochanpur , purchased by a religious society - Radha Swami Satsang, Beas, and certifiedcopy of Sale Deed of 27"' September,2004 (Ex.PW-1/14)of VillageBharthal,enhancementin compensationwas sought. Reference Court upon evaluationof the evidence on record concludedthat there was no evidenceto the effect that location,potentialand utility of the land in the VillagesofBharthal,Pochanpurand Bamnoliis similarand had chosen not to rely upon the aforesaid sale instances as the Sale instanceofthis veiy villagewas available.

¶5In the absence of the evidence of the VendorA^endeeof the aforesaid sale instances.Reference Court had discardedthe aforesaid sale instancesreliedupon by the appellants/claimants,whileadvertingto paragraphno: 29 ofthe Apex Courtdecisionin Lai Chandvs. Unionof 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 undeveloped agricultural land in Delhi.

¶6To fortifythe aforesaidfinding.ReferenceCourt has extensively quotedthe passagesfrom the Apex Courtdecisionin LaiChand(supra) and thereafter,had proceededto discardheavilyreliedupon instanceof allotment of 14.5 acres of the acquired land by Delhi Development Authorityto the PowerDepartmentofGovernmentofNCT ofDelhi for l-A.App.No. ]15/2011&connectedAppealsofVillageBamnoli constructionof 715 Mega Watt Gas Based Power Plant/Project,while holding as under

¶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 questionwithoutpermissionof DDA in view ofSection 12 of the Delhi Development Act, 1957 determination of premiumfor allotmentofland in developmentarea is not an ordinarysale betweena prudent buyerand seller. Premium of land in such an allotment cannot be called the market price of land which a prospectivebuyer of similar land sittingin his armchairwouldbe willingtopay.

¶78Moreover,there is a timegap ofthreeyears between date of Notificationunder Section 4 of LA Act which is ''

04.11.2004 and date of allotment which is 25.11.2007. .Marketprice of land allottedafter 3 years of.Notification under Section of LA Act cannot be taken into considerationfor determiningmarket value on the date of Notificationunder Section 4. As per Section24 ofLA Act, the Courtshallnot take into considerationany increaseto the value ofthe landacquiredlikelyto accruefrom the use to which it willbeput when,required."

¶7Onthe aspectof theacquiredlandbeingdeclaredurbanizedand of being in the developmentzone, the pertinentfindings returned by the Reference Court are as under:- Landofpetitioneris agriculturalland althoughit 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, approvedor unapprovedcame up on the land in question and it would negatepossibilityofland in questionhaving potentialfor buildingsiteeven in nearfuture.

¶95The petitionerhas broughtno evidence, leave aside documentaryevidencethat the acquiredland was suitable LA.App.No. 115/201]&connectedAppealsofVillageBamnoli Page5of15 forputtingup buildings,be they residentialor commercial or industrialas the case,may be. There is no building activitystartedon the landin questioneven afterpassingof a decadesincearea was urbanized."

¶8On the question of potentialityof the acquired land. Reference Courthas takennote ofthe fact thatthis acquiredland is surroundedon all four sides by Villages-Bharthal, Bijwasan,Pochanpurand Dhul Siras. Noticingthat acquiredland is in the vicinityof Dwarka, where DDA is developingcolonies and therefore,adoptionof the minimum ratesfor agriculturalland fixedby the GovernmentofDelhiby theLand AcquisitionCollectorwas not justified.Upon consideringthe two sale instancesof25«> October,2004 (Ex.R-1)and of20'^ April,2004 (ExR-2) ofthis «ry village,ReferenceCourthad discardedthe sale instance (F.x.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 ?17,45,108 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,2000regardingthe changeoflanduseundertheMasterPlanof ^ Delhi has not been consideredby the ReferenceCourtto appreciatethe truepotentialofthe acquiredland.Reliancewas placedupondecisionof the Apex Court in SpecialLandAcquisitionOfficer&Anr vs. M.K. Raflt,SaheB,(2011)7SCC 714, by learnedcounselfor the appellantsto contend that in view of the aforesaidNofifications,the acquiredland cannotbe treatedas an agriculturalland for determinationofits market value.

¶10Aforesaidcontentionis noticedfor beingoutrightlyrejectedas the '.A.APP.NO.M5/20,,^ oo""ec,edApp..,s"fv,"ageBam"",i acquiredlands may not to be termed as agriculturalland but they were 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 misplaced,as the ReferenceCourt has determinedthe market value of the acquiredlandwhilerelyinguponasaleexemplarofthis veryvillage.

¶11There is 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 coulflnot be comparedwith developedlands for determiningthe marketvalue of the acquiredland. Thus, relianceplacedby 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 acquiredland is 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 reliedupon the decisionofApex Courtin Lai Chand vs. Union ofIndia and Anr., (2009) 15 SCC 769 but has extensivelyquoted 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 distinguishthe decisionof the Apex Court in Lai Chand(supra),whose ratio squarely l-A.App.No. 115/2011&connectedAppealsofVillageBamnoli Page7of15 applies to the instantcases. Therefore,Ifind that the ReferenceCourt as H^tiyre&sedto app"Oe,M DevelopmentAuthorityauctionrates or determiningthemarketvalueofthe acquiredland,

¶13Whilereiteratingthe well settledprincipleoflawthatcomparable sale mstances.are the best piece of evidenceto be consideredby the Court for the purposeofdeterminingthe compensation.Apex Court in .srecent decs.onin nadHaMudaliyarVs. SpecialTahsiUar(Land Accu^mon TamU Nadu HousingBoard) (2010) 13 SCC 384 has Observed as under:- executedat th r ' ' ^ '^^ed must have been notification KanwarSinghvs. UnionofIndia." '' ^

¶14Fixationofthe marketvalue ofthe acquiredland on the basisof the sale mstances(Ex.PW-./7to Ex.PW-./H)ofthe adjoiningvillages as sought by the appellantsstands rightly rejected by the Reference' Courtas the sale instancesofthisve.y villageare available.When it is

¶15On the aforesaidreasoning,adoptionofthe L&DOratesto fix the marketvalueofthe acquiredlandssoughtbythe appellantsis outrightly rejected. Appellants'counsel had relied upon decisionof the Apex >.A.App.N"."5/2""^ c"""eo,e«AppealsOfVillageBa.no,i t9-Court in Kiran Tandon vs. Allahabad Development Authority, (2004) 10 see 745 and in Valliyammal and Anr vs. Special Tehsildar (Land Acquisition) and Anr., AIR 2011 SC 2937 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 of the fact that the sale instancesof the instantvillage are availableand so the requirementof consideringthe applicabilityof the sale instances(Ex.PW-1/7to Ex.PW-1/14)would arise only when sale instance (Ex.R-1) is found to be not comparable. Therefore, referenceto the aforesaiddecisionsby learnedcounselfor the appellants ^ is ofno consequence. ^

¶16Duringthe course of hearing, learnedcounsel for the appellants had stronglyrelied upon the instanceof allotmentof 14.5 hectares(37 acres approximately)by Delhi DevelopmentAuthority to the Power Departmentof Delhi Governmenton leaseholdbasis at a consideration of ^297.42 lacs per acre with 2.5% annual ground rent to claim enhancementofcompensationat the rate ofX40 lacsper acre over and above the marketvalue fixed by the ReferenceCourtas the allotmentof the aforesaidland was out ofthe acquiredland. With much vehemence, ( 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 Government of Delhi.

¶17To meet the aforesaidstand of the appellants,it was pointedout by learned senior counsel for the Respondentsthat aforesaidallotment by Delhi DevelopmentAuthorityto Power DepartmentofGovernment LA.App.No, 115/2011&connectedAppealsofVillageBamnoli Page9ofl5 V of Delhi was made in November, 2007 and the possession of the aforesaidland was handedoverto the PowerDepartmentofGovernment ofDelhi in February,2008 and the acquisitionofthe land in questionis of November, 2004 and during the interveningperiod land rates had steadilyincreasedand therefore,aforesaidallotmentcannotbe made the basis to determine the market value of the acquired land as the interveninggap is of threeyears.

¶18The factorsto be consideredto determinethe marketvalue of the acquiredlands as reiteratedby the Apex Courtin GeneralManager,Oil andNaturalGas CorporationLtd vs. RameshbhaiJivanbhaiPateland Anr, (2008) 14 SCC 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 areas, unless there is any prospectof developmentin the Vicinity;, increase in prices would be slow, steady and gradual, withoutany suddenspurts orjumps. On the other hand, in urbanor semi-urbanareas, wherethe development isfaster, wherethe demandfor landis high andwherethere is constructionactivityall around, the escalation in market price is at a much higherrate, as comparedto rural areas. In somepocketsin 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.

¶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 landsin the ruralareas. Therefore,ifthe increasein market value in urban/semi-urbanareas is about 10% to 15%per annum, the correspondingincreasesin ruralareas wouldat LA.App.No. 115/2011&connectedAppealsofVillageBamnoli Page iq of15 r1 best be onlyaroundhalfofit, that is about5% to 7.5%per annum. This rule ofthumb refersto thegeneraltrendin the nineties, to be adoptedin the absenceofclearand specific evidence relating to increase in prices. Where there ar.e specialreasonsfor applyinga higher rate ofincrease, or any specific evidence relating to the actual increase in prices, then the increaseto be appliedwoulddependupon the same.

¶15Normally, recourse is taken to the mode of determining the market value by providing appropriate escalationover theprovedmarketvalueofnearbylands in previous years (as evidenced by sale transactions or acquisitions), where there is no evidence of any contemporaneous sale transactions or acquisitions of comparablelands in the neighbourhood.The saidmethodis reasonably safe where the relied-on sale transactions/ acquisitionsprecede the subjectacquisitionby only afew years, that is uptofour tofiveyears. Beyondthat it may be unsafe, even ifit relatesto a neighbouringland Whatmay be a reliablestandardifthe gap is only afew years, may become unsafe and unreliablestandardwhere the gap is larger. For example,for determiningthe marketvalueofa 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 occurrenceofvaryingperiods ofstagnationin prices or sudden spurts in prices affecting the very standard of increase. " Being mindful of the ratio of the decisionof the Apex Court in ONGC (supra), I find that the instance of institutional allotment (Ex.pwn/l)of the year 2007 heavily relied upon by the appellants would not be ausefulguideto determinethe marketvalueofthe landin question, as the said allotmentwas made afteraperiod of three years from the date ofacquisitionofthe land in question.It is so saidbecause the sale exemplarofthe relevantperiodofthisveryvillagein questionis

1.A,App.No. 115/2011&connectedAppealsofVillageBamnoli ,5 N' 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 (Iix.R-1)relied upon by the ReferenceCourt is 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 only relevantbut is comparableas it has not been shown by the appellantsas to what are the distinguishingfeatureswhich would make it inapplicableto determinethe marketvalueofthe acquiredlands. Finding of the 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 aforesaid finding of the Reference Court, it was submittedby learned counsel for the appellantsthat opportunityto lead rebuttal evidence to show that sale instance (Ex.R-1) is not reliable or bona fide, an application to lead rebuttal evidence was filed before the ReferenceCourt which was illegallyrejectedvide order of 25^*" August, 2010 and therefore, this matter needs to be remanded back to the Reference Court to enable the appellants to lead rebuttal evidence to demolish aforesaid sale instance (Ex.R-1).

¶22First of all, appellants ought to have objected to the exhibition of aforesaid sale instance (Ex.R-1). Having not done so, appellants have to face the legal consequences. Secondly, even if application of the LA.App.No. 115/2011& connectedAppealsof VillageBamnoli Page12 of 15 appellantsfor leading rebuttalevidencewas 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 hearmg,nothingwas urgedto showas to how the saleinstance(Ex.R-1) IS not genuine/reliableor comparable.

¶23In the light of the evidenceon record,I am of the considered opinionthattheReferenceCourthas rightlyrelieduponthe saleinstance (bx.R-1),0 determinethemarketvalueofthe acquiredlands.Findingno merit in the instantappealsofclaimantsand cross-objectionby one of them, the sameare dismissedwhileleavingthe partiesto beartheirown costs. v.,'

¶24So' far as appeals of the Respondentsare concerned,Ifind no substancein them, becausethe determinationofthe marketvalueofthe acquiredland by the ReferenceCourthas been done whilerelyingupon the sale instance (Ex.R-1) produced by the Respondentsthemselves. Regardmgdoingawayofthe classificationofthe acquiredland into "A' block and 'B' Block by the ReferenceCourt is concerned,Ifind that this classificationhas areasonablebasis. That is to say, land with top soil and the landwithouttop soil cannotbe putat paras themarketvalue ofthe landwithouttop soil is boundto be lesserthanthe marketvalueof the land with top soil.

¶25Endorsingthe pricedifferentiationbetween'A' categoiyland and B' category land, my esteemed brother Pradeep Nandrajog, J., in a recentdecisionin LA.App.No.266/2008,titledas JaiSingh&Ors. vs. UnionofIndia&Ors., renderedon 23'-August2011,whilerelyingon the decision of the Division Bench of this court in GajmjSingh vs UnionofIndia. 2006(VI)AD Delhi 13, hasheldas under:- I.A.APP.No. ,,5/201,&connectedAppealsofVillageBa^li

¶36In GajrajSingh'scase (supra), the price differential worked out was ^25,000/- per acre. I have noted hereinabove that the acquisition in Gajraj Singh's case pertainedto the date 15.11.1996In GajrajSingh'scase the pricefor Category 'A ' landdeterminedwas ^9,76,121/-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 Categoiy '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 holdthat 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, cannot be sustainedin the lightof the aforesaidobservations.However, the claim of the Union of India, to seek adoption of the minimum indicativeprice of agriculturalland in Delhi while forgettingthat the Appellant-IJOI itselfhas reliedupon the sale instance(Ex.R-1),merits rejection.

¶27In viewofthe.afore-goingnarration,I find thatno substancein the appeals filed by claimantsas well as in cross objectionof one of the ^, claimantsand the same are dismissed. So far as the appeals filed by Union ofIndiaare concerned,the same are partlyallowedto the extent that the compensationawarded by the Reference Court for the 'B' category of lands (as noticed in the Award of the Land Acquisition Collector)is reducedfrom^17,45,000peracreto ^17,01,375/-;p^racre.

¶28Beforepartingthis order,Iwould like to bring on recordthat the brevity of this order is occasioned by the fact that the impugned judgment is well consideredon facts and the law. Therefore,I have LA.App.No. 115/2011&connectedAppealsofVillageBamnoli Paael4ofl5 >3 S' purposefiillynot adverted to the entire evidence on record and fi,e relevant evidence, i.e. of tl,e sale exemplars has been taken into considerationby me inthis order.

¶29The above captionedappealsand cross-objectionare disposedof with directionto the Registryto remitthe compensationamount,ifany depositedby eitherside with the RegistrarGeneralofthis Court,to the concerned Reference Court. JIL GAUR) February01, 2012 JUDGE pkb/rs .A.AP,No, AppealsOfVillage

'o\ % + % IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI LA.APP. 305/2011 UNION OF INDIA Through: versus VIJAY KUMAR & ANR Tluough; 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, 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.ArunBirbal,Mr.BankeyBihari Sharma,Ms.Amita Singh,Mr.S.K.Sethiand Mr.KunalSharma,Advocates forDDA in (R-74-77 & 80) Mr.MohinderSinghCharak,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.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