Union of India v. Sumeet Saluja & Anr

ORDER 0L02.2012 For orders see LA.App. No. 115/2011, titled as Jai Prakash vs. Union ofIndia & 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 AT DELHI Rese}-^^ed on: January 12, 2011 . Pronounced on: February 01, 2012 LA.APP. 115/2011 (VILLAGE BAMNOLI) JAI PRAKASH Through: Appellant Mr.B.S.Maan, Mr.Amit Maan, Mr.R.S.Verma, Mr.Jai Prakash, Ms.Smita Maan and Mr.Jitin Tewathia, Advocates (R-14-16, 22, 30, 34, 38-45,51-53) Mr.Mohinder Singh Charak, Advocate for appellant in R-112 and respondent in R-63 Mr.B.D.Sharma, Mr.S.K.Rout, Mr.B.K.Routray, Mr.Vinay Kumar,. Advocates in (R-84 to 86, 88-102, 104) Mr.S.K.Routand Mr.B.K.Routrayj,Advocates (in R-74 and for respondenton R-79) versus ' NDIA & ANR. Respondents rhrough: Mr.Sanjay Poddar, Senior Advocate with Mr.Sanjay Pathalc,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 Mi'.ArunBirbal,Mr.BankeyBihariSharma, Ms.Amita Singh, Mr.S.K.Sethi and Mj.Kunal . Sharma,AdvocatesforDDA in (R-74-77& 80) • ^ Mr.MohinderSingb.Charak,Advocate(R-63 and 112) UNION OF LA.APP. 16/2011 r.A.APP. 19/2011 LA.APP. 22/2011 LA.APP. 90/2011 LA.APP. 93/2011 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. IvA.AF'P. 18/2011 21/2011 24/2011 92/2011. 95/2011 LA.App.No. 115/2011& connectedAppealsofVillageBamnoli Page J of 15 ) ' ' — f-, -f-t \h n fv >fi -j , r-r 'Vr. .1, V/'' •i'V^ : 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. 5/2011 7/2011 1/2011 174/2011 8/2011 6/2011 2/2011 4/2011 7/2011 0/2011 3/2011 5/2011 '3/2011 304/2011 307/2011 310/2011 313/2011 316/2011 319/2011 325/2011 355/2011 358/2011 364/2011 49f 72011 72011 499/2011 503/2011 506/2011 513/2011 573/2011 576/2011 /2011 '2011 1/2011 283/2011 287/ 2011 LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.App. LA.App. LA.App. LA.App. 133/2011 168/2011 172/2011 175/2011 179/2011 187/2011 193/2011 205/2011 208/2011 211/2011 264/2011 276/2011 .295/2011 305/2011 308/20.11 311/2011 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. 176/201^1 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. 2'66/2011 LA.APP. 286/2011 LA.APP. 303/2011 LA.APP. 306/2011 LA.APP. 309/2011 LA.APP. 312/2011 LA.A]BP_2I5/2011 CLA.APP.318/20IT LA.APRHTTMT 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/1321Iof 04.11.2004 f/oon Section4ofthe LandAcquisitionAct, 1894& AwardNo 1/2007-2008of06.08.2008,VillageBamnoli,NewDelhi) .A.App.No. 115/2011&ccnnectedAppealsofVillageBamnoli % CORAM: HON'BLE

¶1Abo\ of about 2: Planned De the rate of the consent adjudicated

¶2Land fixed by Go 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 svelopmentof Delhi vide Notificationof 4'^ November,2004 under the Land AcquisitionAct, 1894'and since the impugnedOTder of the ReferenceCourt in these appeals uniformlygrants compensationat fl7,45,000per acre with statutorybenefits,therefore,with of learned counsel for the parties, who were presentat the final hearing, 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 period hi question,had determinedthe marketvalue ofthe acquired land in questionat the aforesaidrate of^15,70,000/-pei" acre ofleveled land in Block A, whereas for the acquiredland excavatedbeyond one meter, i.e., Block B land, compensationwas determinedat the rate of per acre. atisfied with the aforesaid Award of Land Acquisition 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. Reliance was also placed upon of 16'^ October,2000 declaringchange of land use of the acquiredland in questionand thereupon,Delhi DevelopmentAuthority had preparecZonalDevelopmentPlan for DwarkaSub City in Dwarka, ^14,13,000/-

¶3Not Collector, b upon Notifi Corporation instant vill: Notification LA.App.'No. 115/2011& connectedAppealsof VillageBamnoli Pages of 15 IV New Delhi. =4. Whil 1/13) of the s relying upon seven sale instances (Ex.PW-1/7to Ex.PW-year 1999,relatingto agricultu'ralland in Village^Pochanpur puichased l^y a religious society —Radha Swami Satsang, Beas, and certified co Village Bhj Court upon py of Sale Deed of27^VSeptember,2004 (Ex.PW-1/14)of Lrthal, enhancementin compensationwas sought.Reference evaluation of the evidence on record concluded that there ^was no evidenceto the effectthat location,potentialand utility ofthe land in the had chosen •instance of t Villagesof Bharthal,Pochanpurand Bamnoliis similarand not to rely upon the aforesaid sale instances as the Sale his very villagewas available. - 5. In 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 instances (E commercial placing imp inr., (2009) 15 SCC 769. Before dealing with the sale I x.R-I and Ex.R-II)ofVillageBamnoli,ReferenceCourthad refused to apply Delhi DevelopmentAutnority 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 camiot be applied while determining the market price of the undeveloped agricultural land in Delhi.

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

14.5 acres of the acquired land by Delhi Deyelopment .he PowerDepartmentofGovernmentofNCT ofDelhi for and thereafil;e allotment of Authority to LA.App. No. 115/2011 & connectedAppealsofVillageBamnoli Page 4 of 15 , )> constmction holding as under:- of 715 Mega Watt Gas Based Power Plant/Project,while

¶7"77. ^297 Buye. devel The allotmentof1.5 hectareoflandfor apremiumof 42 lakh per acre is an inter departmental allotment. ^ and seller both are agencies of state. Since no opment/constructioncan take place on the land in questionwithoutpermission:ofDDA in view ofSection 12 of the Delhi Development Act, 1957 determination of premiumfor allotmentoflandindevelopment,area is notan ordinarysale betweenaprudentbuyerandseller.Premium of la, price id in such an allotment cannot be called the market of land which a prospectivebuyer of similar land sittingin his armchairwouldbe willingtopay.

¶78Moreover,there is a time gap ofthreeyears between date of Notificationunder Section 4 of LA Act which is QA.11.2004 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 Notifi^"*^'" ~ - the G the va •ation under Section 4. As per Section24 ofLA Act, ^urt shallnot take into considerationany increaseto lue ofthe landacquiredlikelyto accrue.from,the use to which it willbeput when required. On th<; aspectofthe acquiredlandbeingdeclaredurbanizedand of developmentzone, the pertinentfindings returned by the Durt are as under:- Landofpetitioneris agriculturallandalthoughit is in urbanized area and in developmentzone. The land ued to be agriculturalland even till issuance of ation under Section 4 of LA Act in the year 2004 show that in spite of being in capital of country . having explosive population, no residential colony, approx ' and it being in the Reference '•94. contin Notific would

¶95docume. 'ed or unapprovedcame up on the land in question wouldnegatepossibilityofland in questionhaving• potentialfor buildingsiteeven in nearfuture. \ ! ' The petitionerhas broughtno evidence, leave aside •ntary evidence that the acquired land was suitable LA.App. No. 115/201] & .connectedAppealsof VillageBamnoli for putting up buildings,be they residential or commercial strial as the case may be. There is no building or indu activity a decad

¶8On the question of potentialityof thc; acquired land!, Reference Court has taken note of the fact that this acquiredland is surroundedon all four sides by Villages-Bharthal, Bijwasan, Pochanpurand Dhul Siras. Noticingthat acquired land is in the vicinity of Dwarka, where DDA is developingcolonies and therefore, adoption of the minimum rates for agriculturalland fixedby the GovernmentofDelhiby the Land AcquisitionCcjllectorwas not justified.Upon consideringthe two sale October,2004 (Ex.R-1)and of20'*' April, 2004 (Ex.R-village, Reference Court had discarded the sale instance started on the land inquestioneven afterpass since area was urbanized. instances of 25 2) of this very ^ngof (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 comparable.'

¶9In the ir .appellants that Lstant appeals, it was vehementlyurged on behalf of the the effectof Notificationof 24^*" October, 1994 declaring the acquired lands being fit for urbanizationand Notificationof 16"' •egardingthe changeof land use under the MasterPlan of October, 2000 ^ Delhi has not been consideredby the ReferenceCourtto appreciatethe tiuepotentialofthe acquiredland. RehancewaS placedupon decisionof the Apex Court in SpecialLandAcquisitionOfficer& Anr vs, MJL RqfiqSaheb,(2011)7SCC 714, by learnedcounselfor the appellantsto view^ of the aforesaidNotifications,the, acquired land cannotbe treatedas an agriculturalland for determinationofjits market .value.

¶10Aforesaidcontentionis noticedfor beingoutrightlyrejectedas the 'fA^App-No.11^/2011 & con lectedAppealsof VillageBaninoli # 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. Rqfiq Saheb (supra), is clearly misplaced, as the Reference Court has determined the market value of landwhilerelyinguponasaleexemplar,ofthis veryvillage. :.s no question of discarding the aforesaid Notifications. In fact, inspiteofthe aforesaidNotificationsno developmentactivitywas there on the acquiredlands as no permission:was soughtby the owners ofthe acquiredlandsunderDelhiDevelopmentAct and therefore,it can ]eluded that the acquiredlands were undevelopedand the lot be comparedwith developedlands for determiningthe ofthe acquiredland. Thus, relianceplaced by appellant's UdhoDass vs. StateofHaryana&Ors.^ 2010 (9) SCALE the acquired n. There 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(5lfor the appellantsby contendingthatthe acquiredland is fully comparable with the aforesaid land and is in proximity and therefore,the jnarketvalueofthe acquiredlandoughtto have been fixed to the auctionrates ofthe Delhi DevelopmentAuthority, irt has not only reliedupon the decisionofApex Court in Union ofIndia andAm., (2()09) 15 SCC 769 but has extensivelyquoted relevant passages therefrom to hold that the sale consideration()fthe developedlands cannot be appliedto the acquired lands which ^re undisputedlyundeveloped. At the hearing in these appeals, learned counsel for the appellant could not distinguishthe decisionofthe Apex Court in Lai Chand(supra),whose ratio squarely with reference Reference Coi Lai Chand vs. ..A.App.-No. ll5/20Il & cor nectedAppealsof VillageBamnoli' Page7;ofl5 t applies to th(; instant cases. Therefore,I find that the Reference Court has rightlylefusedto applyDelhi DevelopmentAuthorityauctionrates for determiningthe marketvalueofthe acquiredland. i

¶13WhileI'eiteratingthe well settledprincipleoflaw that comparable sale instances,are the best piece of evidenceto be consideredby the Court for the purposeof determiningthe compensation,Apex;Court in ision in Radha Mudaliyar Vs, Special Tahsildar(Land 'amil Nadu Housing Board) 13 SCC 384 has ider:- its recent dec Acquisition j observed as ui determi laid do should genuine

¶13Comparablesalesinstancesare the safestmethodfor ning the market value of the acquiredland and as vn in ShajiKuriakosev. Indian Oil Corpn. Ltd., it satisfy the factors, inter alia (I) the sale must be transaction; (2) the sale deed must have\been executedat the time proximateto the date of issuanceof 'ion underSection4 of the Act; (3) the land covered ale must be in the vicinityofthe acquiredland; (4) coveredby the sale m.ustbe similarto the acquired landand (5) size oftheplotofthe landcoveredby the sale be comparableto the acquired land. The sales instances shouldpreferablybe closest to the da:te of notificationas ne it wouldsatisfythe touchstoneof theprinciples notifica by the s the lana then ale Kanwar contemplated under Section 23 of the Act, as held in Singh vs. UnionofIndia.

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

¶15On the aforesaidreasoning,adoptionofthe L&DO rates to fix the )ftheacquiredlands soughtby the appellantsis outrightly rejected. Appellants' counsel had relied upon decision of the Apex LA.App.No. 115/2011&connectedAppealsofVillageBamnoli Page8of15 ' t Court in Kin 10 see 745 Acquisition) 4-0% towards not fully dev permissible, obviated in v are available the sale insta sale instance m Tandon V5. Allahabad Development'Authority, (2004) and in Valliyammal and Anr vs. Special Tehsildar (Land and Anr., AIR 2011 SC 2937 to assert that deduction of developmentcharges was improperand where large area, iloped, 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 considering,the applicabilityof ices (Ex.PW-1/7to Ex.PW-1/14)would arise only when (Ex.R-1) is found to be not comparable. Therefore, referenceto the aforesaiddecisionsby learnedcounselfor the appellants is of no conse

¶16During had strongly quence. allotment is compensation be at par wit Government o;

¶17To meet the course of hearing, learned counsel for the appellants relied upon the instanceofallotmentof 14.5 hectares(37 acres approximately)by Delhi DevelopmentAuthority to the Power Department o of ^297.42 I Delhi Governmenton leaseholdbasis at a consideration ICS per acre with 2.5% annual ground rent to claim enhancementof compensationat the rate lacsper acre over and abovethe marketvalue 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 pointedout by learned senior counsel for the Respondentsthat aforesaidallotment by Delhi DevelopmentAuthorityto Power Departmentof Government l4,App. No. ]15/201] & corneptedAppealsofVillageBamnoli of pelhi was made in November, 2007 and the possession of the aforesaidlandwas handedovertothe PowerDepartmentof Government ofDelhi in February,2008 and the acquisitionof the land in questionis of November, 2004 and during the interven.ingperiod land rates had steadily increased and therefore,aforesaidallotment 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 Courtin GeneralMamger,Oil 'ii and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd V5= Rameshbhai Jivanbhai Paiel and

(2008) 14 see 745, are as under:- "13. / four fac surroiir, the are areas, rimarily, the increase in land prices depends on tors: situation of the land, nature of developnient in ding area, availabilityof landfor developmentin and the demand for land in the area. In rural inless there is any prospect of developmentin the increase in prices would be slow, steady and withoutany suddenspurts or jumps. On the other urbanor semi-urbanareas, where the development wherethe demandfor land is high and wherethere •uction activity all around, the escalation in market at a much higher rate, as compared to rural areas, pocketsin big cities, due to rapid developmentand mand for land, the escalations in prices .have even 30% to 50% or more per year, during the vicinity, gradual hand, ir: isfaster is constr. price is In some high de touched nineties

¶14there w^ buyers, a nomi significa. in urban lands in value in annum. n the other, extreme, in remote rural areas where 'is no chance of any developmentand hardly any 'hepricesstagnatedfor years or rose marginallyat rate of 1%) or 2% per annum. There is thus,a 'nt differencein increasesin marketvalue of lands n/semi-urbanareasand increasesin marketvalueof the rural areas. Therefore,ifthe increaseinmarket urban/semi-urbanareas is about 10% to 15%iper '•.he corresponding increases in rural areas would at nal LA.App. No. 115/2011 & coinnectedAppeals of VillageBamnoli 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 evidenc special any sp. prices, the sawi e relating to increase in prices. Wheire there are reasons for applying a higher rate of increase, or ecific evidence relating to the actual increase in then the increase to he applied would depend upon e.

¶15Normally, recourse is .taken to the. mode of determi^ning the market value by providing appropriate escalation over theproved 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/ acquisi years, t unsafe, be a re becom.e larger. method 19,80 n course sudden ions precede the subject acquisition by only a few hat is uptofour tofive years. Beyondthat it may be even if it relates to a neighbouringland. What may liable standard if the gap is only a few years, may unsafe and unreliable standard where the gap is For example,for determiningtlje marketvalue of a land acquired in 1992, adopting the annual increase with reference to a sale or acquisition in 1970 or ay have many pitfalls. This is because, over the ofyears, the "rate" of annual increase may itself undergo^ drastic change apart from the likelihood of occurrence of varyingperiods of stagnation in prices or spurts in prices affecting the very standard of increase.

¶19Being r ONGC (supr (EX.PW13/1) riindfulof the ratio of the decisionof the Apex Court in a), I find that the instance of institutional allotment of the year 2007 heavily rehed upon by the appellants wouldnot be a usefulguideto determinethe marketvalue of the land in question, as tlie said allotmentwas made after a period ofthree years •f acquisitionofthe land in question.It is so said because from the date the sale exemplarofthe relevantperiodofthisveryvillagein questionis LA.App. No. 115/2011 & connected Appeals of VillageBamnoli Page 11 of IS qP available. Therefore, the aforesaid instance of allotment of land to the ! PowerDepartmentof Governmentof Delhi has been rightlyrejectedby the Reference Coml.

¶20Now \\ hat is required to be considered is whether the sale instance (Ex.R-1)reliedupon bythe ReferenceCourtis 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 s'ale instance I (Ex.R-l)is not onlyrelevantbut is comparableas it has not been shown by the appellantsas to what are the distinguishingfeatureswhich would make itinapplicableto determine,the marketvalueofthe acquiredlands. Findingofthe ReferenceCourtthat when the sale instance(Ex.R-1)was e^ibitedno 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 el^idenceby the Respondents,the same can be read against them, remains unimpeachable.

¶21However,to meet the aforesaidfindingofthe ReferenceCourt, it was submittedby learnedcounsel for the appellantsthat opportunityto lead rebuttale:videnceto show that sale instance(Ex.R-1)is not reliable or bonafide, Ein applicationto leadrebuttalevidencewas filed beforethe ReferenceCourt which was illegallyrejectedvide orderof25^'' August, 2010 and therefore, this matter needs to be remanded back to the Reference Court to enable the appellantsto lead rebuttal evidence to demolishafonjsaidsaleinstance(Ex.R-l). ;

¶22First of all, appellantsought to have objectedto the exliibitionof aforesaidsale instance(Ex.R-1).Havingnot done so, appellantshave to face.the legal consequences. Secondly, even if application of the LA.App. No. 115/2011 & connectedAppealsof VillageBamnoli

¶23In the . opinion that 1 (Ex.R-l) to d merit ih the : them, iie san costs.

¶24So far substance in' acquired land appellantsfcr leading rebuttal evidence was rejectedby the Reference Court,nothinghad stoppedthem from movingan applicationfor leading additionalevidencein the appeal to lead evidencein order to demolish I 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 genuin^/reliableor comparable. light of the evidence on record, I am of the considered he ReferenceCourthas rightlyreliedupon the sale instance eterminethe marketvalueofthe acquiredlands.Findingno nstant appeals of claimantsand cross-objectionby one of le are dismissedwhile leavingthe partiesto beartheir own as appeals of the Respondents are concerned,I find no ;hem, becausethe determinationof the marketvalue of the by the ReferenceCourthas been done whilerelyingupon the sale instance (Ex.R-1) produced by the Respondentsthemselves. Regaidingdoing away ofthe classificationofthe acquiredland into 'A' block and 'B' Block by the ReferenceCour;: is concerned,I find thiit ;ion has a reasonablebasis.-That is to say, land with top this classifica soil and the landwithouttop soil cannotbe put.atpar as the marketvalue thouttop soil is boundto be lesserthan the marketvalueof :op soil. ng the pricedifferentiationbetween'A' categoryland and land, my esteemed brother Pradeep Nandraj|og, J., in a 1in LA.App.No.266/2008,titled as JaiSingh &Ors. vs. Union ofIndia&Ors., renderedon 23"' August2011,whilerelyingon the decisionof tlie Division Bench of this court in GajrajSingh vs. UhiotfofIndia,2006 (VI)AD Delhi 13, has held as under:- of the land wi the land with'

¶25Endorsi 'B' category recent decisio LA.App.No. ]13/2011&connectedAppealsofVillageBamnoli

¶56in GajrajSingh'scase (supra), theprice differential worked but was ^25,000/- per acre. I have noted hereinabove that the acquisition in Gajraj Singh's case' pertained to thedate 15.11.1996.In Gajraj Singh's case the pricefor Category 'A ' landdeterminedwas ^9,76,121/-per id for Category 'B' land the price determinedwas 21/- per acre and the price differential comes to about 2.5% with reference to the price of Category 'A' land. acre ai ^9,51,1

¶57I thus hold that Gajraj Singh's case should be my guiding^starfor price differentialin the instant cases as well an^d 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, cannot be sus the claim of Appellant - U rejection.

¶27In view appeals filed claimants and .ainedin the light ofthe aforesaidobservations.However, the Union of India, to seek adoption of the minimum indicativeprice of agriculturalland in Delhi while forgettingthat the OI itselfhas reliedupon the sale instance(Ex-jR-l),merits •ofthe.afore-goingnarration,I find thatno substancein the 3y claimants as well as in cross objectionof one of the 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/-;.eracre.

¶28Beforepartingthis order,Iwould like lo bring on recordthat the brevity of this order is occasioned by the fact that the impugned judgment is v^ell consideredon facts and the law. Therefore,I have A.App.No.115/2011 &. CO inectedAppealsofVillageBaranoli purposefullyrot adverted to the entire evidence on record and the relevant evidence, i.e. of the sale exemplars has been taken into consideration by me in this order.

¶29- The above captionedappeals and cross-objectionare disposedof with directionto the Registryto remitthe compensationamount,ifany, depositedby eitherside with the RegistrarGeneralofthis Court, to the concerned Reference Court. February 01,2012 pkb/rs iAApp. No. 115/2011& connected AppealsofVillageBamnoli NIL JUDGE •Page 15 ofJ5

% + % IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI LA.APP. 318/2011 UNION OF INDIA Through: versus SUMEET SALUJA & ANR Through: Reserved on: January 12. 2012 Pronounced on: February 01. 2012 Appellant Mr.Sanjay Poddar, Senior Advocate with Mr.Sanjay Pathak, Ms.Navlin Swain, Ms.K.K.Kiran and Mr.S.N.Pandey, Advocates for UOI Mr. Yeeshu Jain, Advocate for UOI (R-1 to 5, 18-37, 47, 49,50-52, 55-73, 75-81, 113-123 Mr.Arun Birbal, Mr.Bankey Bihari Sharma, Ms.Amita Singh, Mr.S.K.Sethi and Mr.Kunal Sharma, Advocates for DDA in (R-74-77 & 80) Mr.Mohinder Singh Charak, 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.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