Union of India v. Anand Prakash & Anr

ORDER

01.02.2012 For orders see LA.App. No.115/2011, titled as Jai Prakash vs. Union of India / &Anr. JUDGE FEBRUARY 01, 2012 pkh 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 H Reserved on. Januar12Q11 Pronounced on. Februal'yOljQJ2 LA APP 115/2011 (VILLAGE BAMNOL1) JAI PRAKASH Appellant : Through: Mr.B.S.Maan, Mr.Arnit Maan, Mr.R.S.Verrna, Mr.Jai Prakash, Ms.Smita Maan and Mr.Jitin Tewathia, Advocates (R-14-16, 22, 30,34, 38-45 1 51-53) Mr.Mohinder Singh Charak, Advocate for • : appellant in R-1 12 and respondent in R-63 Mr.B.D.Sharma, Mr.S.K.Rout, Mr.B.K.Routray, Mr.Vinay Kumar, Advocates in(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) • versus UNiON OF INDIA & ANR . . ... Respondents Through.: Mr.Sanjay Poddar, Senior Advocate with • S Mr.Sanjay Pathak, Ms.Navlin Swain, Ms.K.K.Kiran and Mr.S.N.Pandey, Advocates for UOI Mr. Yeeshu Jam, Advocate for uqi (R-1 to 5, 18-37, 47, 49, 50-52, 55-73, 75-81 113-123 Mr Arun Birbal, Mr Bankey Bihari Sharnia, Ms.Arnita Singh, Mr. S .K. Sethi and Mr.Kunal Sharma, Advocates for DI)A in (R-74-77 & 80) Mr.Mohinder Singh Charak, Advocate (R.-63 and 112) AND . LA.APP. 16/2011' LA.APP. 19/2011 LA.APP. 22/2011 LA.APP. 90/20 1 1 SLA..APP. 93/2011 LA.APP. 17/20 11 LA.APP. 20/20 1 1 LA.APP. 23/20 1 1 LA.APP. 91/2011 LA.APP. 94/2011 LA.APP. 18/2011 LA.APP.21/2011 •LA.APP. 24/201 1 LA.APP.92/2011 LA.APP.95/2011 Page lofJ,5 LA.App. No. 115/2011 & connected Appeals of Village Báninoli H. hA APP 115/2011 LA APP 133/2011 LA APP 166/2011 • LA.APP. 167/2011 LA.APP. 168/2011 LA.APP. 170/2011 LA.APP. 171/2011 LA.APP. 172/2011 LA.APP. 173/2011 H LA.APP.174/2011 LA.APP. 175/2011. LA.APP. 176/2011 1. LA.APP. 178/2011 LA.APP. 179/2011, LA.APP. 183/2011 LA.APP. 186/2011 LA.P. 187/2011 LA.APP. 189/2011 LA.APP. 192/2011 LA.APP. 193/2011 LA.APP 194/2011 • H. • LA.APP. 204/2011 LA.APP. 205/2011 LA.APP. 206/2011 LA.APP. 207/2011 LA.APP.208/2011, • LA.APP 209/2011 • LA.APP. 210/2011 LA.APP. 211/2011 LA.APP. 260/2011 LA.APP. 263/2011 LA.APP.264/011., LA.APP. 266/2011 LA.APP. 275/2011 LA.APP. 276/2011 LA.APP. 286/2011 • LA.APP. 93/201 1 LA.APP. 29.5/2011 • LA.APP. 303/2011 LA.APP. 304/2011 LA.APP.3O5/2011 LA.App.306/2011 H • LA.APP. 307/2011 LA.APP. 308/2011 LAAPP. 309/2011 LA.APP.31O/2O1 LA.APP.311/2011 LA.APP.312/2011 • LA.APP.313/2011 LA.APP.3141'2011 LA.P.35/2O1i LA.APP.316/2011 LA.APP.317/2011 • LA.APP.318/201i . LA.APP. 319/2011 LA.APP. 320/2011 LA.APP. 32 1/20 11 • • LA.APP. 325/2011 LA.APP. 352/2011 LA.APP.354/201][ LA.APP. 355/2011 LA.APP. 356/2011 LA.APP. 357/2011 LA.APP. 358/2011 LA.APP. 359/2011 LA.APP. 363/2011 LA.APP. 364/2011 LA.APP. 490/2011 LA.APP. 491/2011 LA.APP. 492/2011 LA.APP. 493/2011 LA.APP. 494/2011 • LA.APP. 495/2011 LA.APP. 497/2011 LA.APP. 498/2011 • LA.APP. 499/2011 LA.APP.501h011 •• LA.APP.502/2011 • LA.APP. 503/2011 LA.App.504/2011 : LA.App.505/2011 LA.APP. 506/2011 LA.APP. 507/2011 LA.APP. 512/2011 LA.APP. 513/2011 LA.APP. 524/2011 LA.APP. 533/2011 LA.APP. 573/2011 LA.APP. 574/2011 LA.APP. 575/2011 • .. LA.APP. 576/2011.. LA.APP. 577/2011 LA.APP. 590/2011 LA.APP. 592/2011 LA.APP. 645/2011 LA.APP. 638/2011 LA.App. 196/2011 LA.App. 278/2011 • LA.App. 279/2011 2 •LA.APp.280/2011 LA.App. 281/2011 LA.App..282/2011 LA.App. 283/2011 LA.App.284/211 LA.App.285/2011 • LA.App. 287/2011 LA.App. 288/2011 .LA.APP. 184/2011 & • • . • C.M.No. 10953/201.1 • • • • • • • •. (Cross-objection) (Relating to Notification No.950)/2004/L&13/LA/1321 1 of 04.1 1.20Q • • issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 & Award NO. • 172007-2008of 06.08.2008, Village Bamnoli, NewDeihi) I No. 115/2011 ,& connected Appeals of Village Bamnoli CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUN.ILGAUR ORDER H % 01022012

¶1Above captioned appea,ls and cross-objections relate to acquis1ion of about 2100 bighas of laud in Village Bamnoli, Delhi notified for Planned Development of Delhi vide Notification of 4th November, 2004 . under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and since the impugned order of the Reference Court uI these appeals uniformly grants compensation at the rate of Z17,45,000 per acre with statutory benefits, therefore, with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, who were present at the final hearing, these matters were heard together and are being adjudicated upon by this common order. . 2 Land Acquisition Collector while relying upon the indicative price fixed by Government of NCT of Delhi for agricultural land in D lhlL for the period in question, had determined the market value of the acquired land in question at the aforesaid rate of 15,70,000/- per ache of leveled land in Block A, whereas for the acquired lafld excavated beyond One meter, i e, Block B land, compensation was determined at the rate of 14,13,0001-per acre. 3 Not satisfied with the aforesaid Awaid of Land Acquisition Collector, before the Reference CQurt, appellants/claimants had relied • upon Notification of 24th October, 1994 issued by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi declaring the land in 20 villages including he instant village to be urbanized. Reliance was also placed upon Notification of 16th October, 000 declaring change of land use ofthe. acquired land in question and thereuon, Delhi Development Authority had prepared Zonal Development Plan foi Dwaika Sub City in Dwarka, L.Ajp. No. I 5/2Oi 1 & connected Appeals of Village Bamnoli New Delhi. While relying upon seven sale instances (Ex.PW-l/7 to Ex.PW-1/13) of the year 1999, relating to agricultural land in Village Pochanpur purchased by a religious society - Radha Swami Satsang, Beas, and certified copy of Sale Deed of 27t1 September, 2004 (Ex.PW-1/14) of.

Village Bharthal, enhancement in compensation was sought. Reference Court upon evaluation of the evidence on record concluded that there was no evidence to the effect that location, potential and utility of the land in the Villages of Bharthal, Pochanpu and Bamnoli is similar and had chosen not to rely upon the aforesaid sale instances as the Sale instance of this very village was available. In the absence of the evidence of the Vendor/Vendee of the aforesaid sale instances, Reference Court had discarded the aforesaid sale instances relied upon by the appellants/claimants, while adverting to •paragraph no: 29 of the Apex Court decision in Lal Chand vs. Union of India and Anr., (2009) 15 SCC 769. Before dealing with the â1e instances (Ex.R-I and Ex.R-II) of Village Bàmnoli, Reference Court had refused to apply Delhi Development Authority auction rate for the commercial plots or the schedule of market rates for Vasant Vihar by placing implicit reliance upon the Apex Court decision in La! Ciwnd (supra) to hold that market price' for the developed la4d cannot be applied while determining the market price of the undeveloped agricultural land in Delhi. To fortify the aforesaid finding, Refetence Court has extensively quoted thepassages from the Apex Court decision in La! C'hand (supra)' and thereafter, had proceeded to discard heavily relied upon instance of allotment of 14.5 acres of the acquired land by Delhi Development Authority to the Power Department: of Government of NCT of Delhi f9r. LA.App. No. 115/2011 & connected Appeals of Village Bamnoli Page 4 of L5 • construction of 715 Mega Watt Gas Based Power Plant/Project, vhile holding as under:- "77. The allotment of 1.5 hectare of land for a premium of 29 7.42 lakh per acre is an inter departmental allotment. Buyer and seller both are agencies of state. Since no development/ construction can take place on the land in question without permisslon.ofDDA in view of Section 12 of the, Delhi Development Act, 1957 determination cf •premium for allotment of land in development area is not an ordinary sale between a prudent buyer and seller. Premium of land in such an allotment cannot be called the market price of land which a prospective buyer of similar land sitting in his armchair would be willing to pay. j

¶78Moreover, there is a time gap of three years between date of Notflcatjon under 'Section 4 of LA Act which is

04.11.2004 and date of allotment which is 25.11.2007'. Market price of land allotted after 3 years of Notflcation under. Section 4 of LA Act cannot be taken into • ' consideration for determining market value on the date of H Notflcation under Section 4. As per Section 24 of LA Act, the Court shall not take into consideration any increase to th value of the land acquired likely to accrue from the use to which it will be put when required.

¶7On the aspect of the acquired land being declared urbanized and of being in the development zone, the pertinent findings returned by the Reference Court are as under:-

"94. Land of petitioner is agricultural land although it is in urbanized area and in development zone. The land contiiued to be agricultural land even till , issuance of NotfIcation under 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, approved or unapproed cathe up on the land in question and it would negate possibility of land in question having 'potential for building site even in near future.

¶95The petitioner has brought no evidence, leave aside , documentary evidence that the acquired land was suitable LA.App. No. 115/201 1 & connected Appeals of Village Bamnoli Page 5of15 • for putting up buildings, be they residential or commercial • or industrial as the case may be. There is no building activity started on the land in question even qfter passing of a decade since area was urbanized." 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 Dlul Siras. Noticing that acquired land is in the, vicinity of Dwarka, where DD'A is developing colonies and therefore, adoption of the rniriirrum rates for agricultural land fixed by the Government of DelhI by the Land •Acquisition Collector was not justified. UpQn considering the two sale intances 0f25th October, 2004 (Ex.R-l) and 0f20th1 Apri1 2004 (Ex.R 2) of this very village, Reference Court had discarded the sale instance • (Ex.R2) as sale consideration of 9,02,496 per acre was found to be depressed and had chosen to rely upon the sale instance (Ex.Rl) depicting sale consideration of 17,45,,108 which was, found to be comparable: In the instant appeals, it was vehemently urged on behalf of the appellants that the effect of Notification of 24 October, 1994 declaring the acquired lands being fit for urbanization and Notification of 1th1 October, 2000 regarding the change of land use under the Master Plan of I)elhi has not been considered by the Reference Court to appreciate the true potential of the acquired land. Reliance was placed upon decision '14 the Apex Court in Special Land Acquisition Officer & Anr vs. M.K. Rafiq Saheb, (2011) 7 SCC 71 ; by learned coutisel, for the appellants to contend that in view Of the aforesaid Notifications, the acquired land cannot be treated as an agricultural land for determination of its market value.

¶10, Aforesaid contention is noticed for being outrightly 'rejected as the

LA.App.No. 115/2011 & connectedAppea1sofvi1!ageBanjnoj age6of15 acquired lands may not to be termed as-agricultutal land but they were certainly undeveloped 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. Rafq Saheb (supra), is clearly misplaced, as the Reference Court has determined the market value of the acquired land while relying upon a sale exemplar of this very village. 11 rhere is no question of discarding the aforesaid Notifications In fact, inspite of the aforesaid Notifications no development activity was there on the acquired lands as no permission was sought by the owners of the acquired lands under Delhi Development Act and therefore, it an be safely concluded that the acquired lands were undeveloped and the same could not be compared with developed lands for determining the market value-of the acquired land. Thus, reliance placed by appellant's counsel upon Udiw Dass vs. State-of Haiyana & Ors., 2010 (9) SCALE 41 is of no avail •

¶12Rejection of auction rates of Delhi Development Authority, in Sector 20 and 22 of Dwarka, by the Reference Court, is assailed by learned counsel for the appellantsby contending that the acquired land is fully comparable with the aforesaid land and is in proximity and therefore, the market value of the acquired, land ought to have been fixed • with reference to the auction rates of the Delhi Development Authority. Reference Court has not only relied upon the decision of Apex Court in La! Chand vs. Union of Ihdia and Anr., (2009) 15 SCC 769 but has extensively quoted relevant passages therefrom to hold that the sale - conideration of the developed lands cannot be applied to the acquired iands which are undisputedly undeveloped. At the hearing in these appeals, learned counsel for the appellant could not distinguish the decision of the Apex Court in La! Chand (supra), whose ratio squarely • LA.App. No. 115/2011 & connected Appeals of village l3arnnoli -- .-- t----.----• --.---•---•--- -----••-.•--•-----••-------•-----------•----•------•---•--- - applies to the instant cases. Therefore, I find that the Reference Court has rightly refused to apply Delhi Development Authority auction rates for determining the market value of the acquired land.

¶13While reiterating the well settled principle of law that compardble sale instances, are the best piece of evidence to be considered by the Court for the purposeof determining the compensatio, Apex Court in its recent decision in 'Radha Mudaliyar Vs. Special Tahsildar (Land Acquisition Taint! Nadu Housing Board) (2010) 13 SCC 384 has bs'erved as 'under:- "13. Comparable sales instances are the safest , method for determining the market value of the acquired land and as • laid down in Shaji Kuriakose v. Indian Qil Corpn. Ltd., it should satis, the factors, inter a/ia the sale must be genuine transaction,• (2) the sale deed must have been executed at the time proximate to the date of issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act, (3) the land covered by the sale must be in the vicinity of the acquired land; (4) the land covered by the sale must be similar to' the acquired land and (5) size of the plot of the land covered by the sale be cmparable to the acquired land. The sales iflst?nces shouldpreferably b e closest to the date of notcatjOn as then alone it would satisfy the touchstone of the princzles contemplated under Section 23 of the Act, as held in Kanwar Sing/i vs. Union ofIndia."

¶14Fixation of the market value of the acquired land on the basis of the sale instances (Ex.PW-1/7 to Ex.PW-1/14) of the adjoining villages,' as sought by the appellants stands rightly rejected by the Reference Court as the sale instances of this very village, are available. When it is so, then there is no need to look for the sale instances of the adjoining villages

¶15On the aforesaid reasoning, adoption of the L&DQ'rates to fix the market value of the acquied lands sought by the appellants is outghtl rejected. Appellants' côuisel had relied upon ,decision of the Apex I A App No 115/2011 & connected Appeals of village Bamnolj S Court in Kiran Tandon vs. Allahabad Development Authority, (2004) 10 SCC 745 and in Valliyammcll and Anr .'s. Special Tehsildar (Land Acquisition) and Anr., AIR 2011 SC 2937 to assert that deduction of 40% towards development charges was improper and where large area, not fully developed,, is acquired, normally, deduction of about 334 is permissible. The need to look for sale instances in the vicinity is obviated in view of the fact that the sale instances of the instant village are available and so the requirement of considering the applicability of the sale instances (Ex.PW1/7 to, Ex.PW-1/14) would arise only whn sale instance (Ex.R-1) is • found to be not comparable. Therefore, reference to the aforesaid decisions by learned counsel for the appellants is ofno consequence. • 16. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the appellants had strongly relied upon the instance of allotment of 14.5 hectares (37 acres approxImately) by Delhi Development Authority to the Power Department'of Delhi Governmept on leasehold basis at a consideration • of Z297.42 lacs per acre with 2.5% annual ground rent to claim enhancement of compensation at the rate of Z40.1acsPer acre over and above the market value fixed by the Reference Court as the allotment of the aforesaid land was out of the acquired lad. With much vehemen, it was asserted by learned counsel for the appellants that the aforesaId allotment is clearly comparable and. therefore, on its basis the compensation ought to be enhanced while treating the acquired land be at par with the aforesaid land allotted to Power Department 'of • Government of Delhi.

¶17To meet the aforesaid stand of the appellants, it was pointed out • by learned, senior counsel for the Respondents that aforesaid alhtmerit by I)elhi Development Authority to Power Department of Government 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, 2004 and during the intervening period 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 acquired lands as reiterated by the Apex Court in General Manager, Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd vs. Rameslibhal Jivanbhai Pate! and Anr, (2008) 14 SCC 745, are as under:- '13. Prim qrily, the increase ii'z land prices depends on four factors; situation of the land, nature of development in - surrounding area,' availability of lana.' for development in - the area, and the demand for 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, without any .sudden spurts or jumps. On the other hand, in urban or semi-urban areas, where the development is faster, where the demand for land is high and where there is construction activity all around, the escalation in market price is at a much higher rate, as compared to rural areas. In some pockets in big cities; due to rapid development and 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 development and hardly any buyers, the prices stagnated for years or rose marginally at a nominal rate of 1% or 2% per anntim. There is thus a signflcant dfjerence in increases in market value of lands in urban/semi-urban areas and increases in market value of lands in the rural areas. Therefore, if the increase in narket value in urban/semi-urban areas is about 10% to 15% per annum, the corresponding increases in i:ural areas would at IA App No I J5/201 I & connected Appeals of Village Bamnoli Page 10 of (5 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 specflc evidence relating to increase in prices. Where there are special reasons for applying• a higher rate of increase, or any specific evidence relating to the actual increase in prices, then the increase to be applied would depend upon the same. rot • 15. Normally, recourse is taken to the mode of determining the market value by pmviding 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/ acquisitions precede the subject acquisition by only a few years, that is upto four to five years. Beyond that it may be unsafe, even if it relates to a neighbouring land What may be a reliable standard if the gap is only a few years, may become unsafe and unreliable standard where the gap is larger. For example, for determining the market value of a land icquired in 1992, adopting the annual increase method with reference to a sale or acquisition in 1970 or 1980 may have many pitfalls. This is because, over the course of years, the "rate" of annual increase may itself undergo drastic change apart from the likelihood of occurrence of varying periods of stagnation in prices or sudden spurts in prices affecting the very standird of increase.

¶19Being mindful of the ratio of the de&:sion of the Apex Court in ONGC ('supra), I find that the instance of institutional allotment (Ex.PW13/1) of the year 2007 heavily relied upon by the appellants would not be a useful guide to determine the market value of the land in question, as te said allotment was made after a period of three yeats from the date of acquisition of the land in question. It is so said becau the sale exemplar of the relevant period of this very village in question Is LA.App. No. 115/2011 & connected Appeals of village Bamnoli

Page II oflS available. Therefore, the aforesaid instance' of allotment of land to the • Power Deiiartrnent of Government ofDe1hi has been rightly rejectedby the Reference Court.

¶20Now what is required to be onsidered is whether the sale instance (Ex R-1) relied upon by the Reference Court is a comparable instance or • not. Undisputedly, sale instance (Ex.R-1) is of this very village and is of October, 2004 whereas the land in question was acquired vide • Notification of November, 2004. Evidently, aforesaid sale instárce (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 document is acceptable in evidence and since this document has been tendered in evidence by the Respondents, the same can be read agarst • them, remains unimpeachable. However, to meet the aforesaid finding of the Reference Court, it was submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that opportunity to 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 Reference Court which was illegally rejected vide order of 25th AugUt,. 2010 and therefore, this matter needs to 'be remanded back to the Reference Court to enable the appellants to lead rebutil evidence' to demolish aforesaid sale instance (Ex.R-'i). First 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. Seondiy, even if application of the 'LA.App. No. I 15'2OI1 & connected Appeals of village Bamnoli

Page 12 of • appellants for leading rebuttal evidence was rejected by the Referece Court, nothg had stopped them from moving an application for leading additional evidence in the appeal to lead evideice fin order to demOish the sale instance (Ex.R-1). Not only this, even durIng the course 1 of hearing, nothing was urged to show as to how the sale instance (Ex.R-l) is not genuine/reliable or comparable:

¶23In the light of the evidence on record, I am of the considered opinion that the Reference Court has rightly relied upon the sale iristaice (Ex.R-l) to determine the market value of the acquired lands. Finding no merit in the instant appeals of claimants and cross-objection by one of them, the same are dismissed while leaving the parties to bear their own costs. . ,•: 24. So far as appeals of the Respondents are concerned, I find no substance in them, because the determination of the market valUe of the acquired land by the Reference Court has been done while relying upon the sale instance (Ex.R-l) produced by the Respondents themselvs. Regarding doing away of the classification of the acquired land into 'A' block and 'B' Block by the Reference Court is concerned, I find that this classification has a reasonable basis. That is to say, land with top boil and the land without top soil canot be put at par as the market value of the land without top soil is bound to be lesser than the market value bf the land with top soil. . .25. Endorsing the price diffeentiatjon between 'A' category land rd 'B' category land, my esteemed brother P adeep Nandrajog, J, in a recent decision in LA.App. No.266/2008, titled as Jai Singh & Ors. Union of India & Ors., rendered on 2rd August 2011, while relying on the decision of the Division Bench of this . court in Gajraj Sing/i Union of India, 2006 (VI) AD Delhi 13, has held as under:- LA.Ap. No. 115/2011 & connected Appeals of Village Bamnoli Page 13 of 15' 'a 11)A "56 In Gajraj Singh 's case supra, the price 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 Sing/i 's case the price for Category 'A' land determined was 9, 76,121/- per acre and for categoiy 'B' land the price determined was 9, 51,121/- per acre and the price differential comes to about 2.5% with reference to the price of Category 'A' land.

¶57I thus hold that Gajraj Singh 's case should be my guiding star for price differential in the instant cases as well and thus I hold, that wherever Category , 'A', category 'B' and category 'C' have to be dfferentiated on price, the derentjal should be 2.5%". Consequentially, the finding bf the Reference Court regarding the 'A' category and 'B' category land being similarly situated having sare potentiality and because they are acquired for the same public purpose, cannot be sustained in the light,of1he aforesaid observations. Howevr, the claim of the Union of India, to seek. adoption of the minimum indicative price of agricultural land in Delhi while forgetting that the Appellant UOI itself has relied upon the s1e instance (Ex.R-1), merIts rejection. In view of the. afore-going narration, I find that' no substance in the appeals filed by claimants as well as in cross objection of one of the claimants and the same are dismissed. So far as the appeals flied by Union of India are concerned, the same are partly allowed o the extent that the compensation awarded by the Reference Court i for the 'B' category of lands (as noticed in the Award of the Land Acquisition Cqllector) is reduced from Z I7,45,OOO per acie to ZI 7,O1,375/-per acre. Before parting 'this order, I would like to bring on record that the revity of this order is occasioned by the fact that the impugned judgment is well considered on facts and the law. Therefore, I hae LA.App. No. 115/2011 & connected Appeals of Village Bamnoli purposefiully not adverted to the entire evidence on record and t1e reIvant evidence, i.e. of the sale exemplars has been taken ino consideration by me in this order.

¶29The above captioned appeals and cross-objection are dispoed of with direction to the Registry to remit the compensation amount, if any deposited by either side with the Registrar General of this Court, to th concerned Reference Court. JUDGE February 01, 2012 pkb/rs • • •' • S •

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on: January 12, 2012 Pronounced on: February 01, 2012 + LA.APP. 359/2011 UNION OF INDIA Appellant Through: 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 Jam, Advocate for UOI. (R- 1 to 5, 1 8-37, 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.Kunal Sharma, Advocates S for DDA in (R-74-77 & 80) Mr.Mohinder Singh Charak, Advocate (R-63 and 112) versus 4. ANAND PRAKASH & ANR Respondent 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, 5 1-53) 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) CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR 0/ /0