Attar Singh v. Union of India & Anr

ORDER 0L02.2012 For orders see LA.App. No.115/2011, titled as Jai Prakash vj'. Union ofIndia & Anr. FEBRUARY 01, 2012 pkb JUDGE la 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 -9 5"^ >% IN THE HIGH COURT OF ,DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on: Januan' 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, MrJai Prakash, Ms.Smita Maan and MrJitin 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-84to 86, 88-102, 104) Mr.S.K;Rout and Mr.B.K.Routray, A.dvocates (in R-74 and for respondent on R-79) versus UNION OF INDIA & 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 for UOI Mr. Yeeshu Jain, Advocate for UOI (P^-l to 5, 18-37,47,49,50-52,55-73,75-81, 113-123 Mr.Arun Birbal, 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) LA. APP. 16/2011 LA. 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 UA.App.No. 115/2011& connectedAppealsofVillageBamnoli LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. 18/2011 21/2011 24/2011 92/2011 95/2011 1'? (••• LA.APP. 115/20.11 LA.APP, 167/2011 LA. APP. 171/2011 LA.APP. 174/2011 LA.APP. 178/2011 LA.APP. 186/2011 LA.APP. 192/2011 LA.APP. 204/2011 LA.APP. 207/2011 LA.APP. 210/2011 LA.APP. 263/2011 LA.APP. 275/2011 LA.APP. 293/2011 LA.APP. 304/2011 LA.APP. 307/2011 LA.APP. 310/2011 LA.APP. 313/2011 LA.APP. 316/2011 LA.APP. 319/2011 LA.APP. 325/2011 LA.APP. 355/2011 LA.APP. 358/2011 LA.APP. 364/2011 LA.APP. 492/2011 LA.APP. 495/2011 LA.APP. 499/2011 LA.APP. 503/2011 LA.APP. 506/2011 LA.APP. 513/201L LA.APP. 573/2011 LA.APP. 576/2011 LA.APP. 592/2011 LA.App. 196/2011 LA.App. 280/2011 LA.App. 283/2011 LA.App. 287/2011 LA.APP. 133/2011 LA.APP. 168/2011 LA. APP. 172/2011 LA.APP. 175/2011 LA.APP. 179/2011 LA.APP. 187/2011 LA.APP. 193/2011 LA.APP. 205/2011 LA.APP. 208/2011 LA.APP. 211/2011 LA.APP. 264/2011 LA.APP. 276/2011 LA.APP. 295/2011 • LA.APP. 305/2011 LA.APP. 308/2011 LA.APP. 311/2011 LA.APP. 314/2011 LA.APP. 317/2.011 LA.APP. 320/2011 LA.APP. 352/2011 LA.APP. 356/2011 LA.APP. 359/2011 LA.APP. 490/2011 LA.APP. 493/2011 LA.APP. 497/2011 LA.APP. 501/2011 LA.APP. 504/2011 LA.APP. 507/2011 LA.APP. 524/2011 LA.APP. 574/2011 LA.APP. 577/2011 LA.APP. 645/2011 LA.App. 278/2011 LA.App. 281/2011 LA.App. 284/2011 LA.App. 288/2011 LA.APP. 166/2011 LA.APP. 170/2011 LA.APP. 173/2011 LA.APP. 176/2011 LA. AFP. 183/2011 LA. APP. 189/2011 LA.APP: 194/2011 LA.APP. 206/2011 LA.APP. 209/2011 LA.APP. 260/2011 LA.APP. 266/2011 LA.APP. 286/2011 LA.APP. 303/2011 LA.APP. 306/2011 LA.APP. 309/2011 LA.APP. 312/2011 LA.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.50k/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)/2604/L&B/LA/1321.1of 04.11.2004 Acquisition Act, 1894 & Award No. 1/2007-2008of06.08.2008,VillageBamnoli,NewDelhi) LA.App.No. 115/2011&connectedAppealsofVillageBamnoli Page 2 of IS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR ORDER %

01.02.2012

¶1Above captioned appeals and cross-objections relate to acquisition of about 2100 bighas of land in Village Bamnoli, Delhi notified for PlannedDevelopmentof Delhi vide Notificationof 4'^ November,2004 under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and since the impugned order of the ReferenceCourt in these appeals uniformlygrants compensationat • the rate of ^17,45,000 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 an^ are being adjudicated upon by this common order. i

¶2Land Acquisition Collectorwhile relying upon the indicativeprice fixed by Government of NCT of Delhi for agricultural land in Delhi for the period iti question,had determinedthe marketvalue of the acquired land in questionat the aforesaidrate of ^15,70,000/-per acre of leveled land in Block A, whereas for the acquiredland excavatedbeyond one meter, i.e.. Block B land, compensation was determined at the rate of ^14,13,000/-per acre.

¶3Not satisfied with the aforesaid Award of Land Acquisition Collector,before the Reference Court, appellants/claimantshad relied upon Notification of 24"^ October, 1994 issued by the Municipal Corporationof Delhi declaring the land in 20 villages including the instant village to be urbanized. Reliance was also placed upon Notificationof 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. 115/2011&,connectedAppealsofVillageBamnoli Page3of15 New Delhi.

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

¶5In the absence of the evidence of the Vendor/Vendeeof the aforesaid sale instances.Reference Court had discardedthe aforesaid sale instancesreliedupon by the appellants/claimants,whileadvertingto paragraphno: 29 ofthe Apex Courtdecision"in 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 implicitrelianceupon the Apex Court decision in Lai Chand (supra) to hold that market price for the developed land caimot be -applied while determining the market price of the undeveloped agricultural land in Delhi. .6. To fortifythe aforesaidfinding,ReferenceCourt has extensively quotedthepassagesfrom the Apex Courtdecisionin LaiChand(supra) and thereafter,had proceededto discardheavilyreliedupon instanceof allotment of 14,5 acres of the acquired land by Delhi Development Authoiityto the PowerDepai-tmentofGovernmentofNCT ofDelhi for j lAApp.No. 115/20]1&connectedAppealsofVillageBamnoli 4 jg \0 constructionof 715 Mega Watt Gas Based Power Plant/Project,while holding as undef;-

¶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 questionwithoutpermissionofDDA in view ofSection 12 of the Delhi Development Act,, 1957 determination of premiumfor allotmentofland in developmentarea is notan 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 atimegap 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 ofland allottedafter 3years,ofNotification under Section 4 of LA Act cannot be taken into considerationfor determiningmarket value on the date of NotificationunderSection 4. As per Section24 ofLA Act, the Courtshallnot take into considerationany increaseto the valueofthe landacquiredlikely to accruefrom the use to which it will beput when required."

¶7Dn the aspectofthe acquiredlandbeingdeclaredurbanizedand of ; being in the developmentzone, the pertinentfindings returned by the Reference Court are as under:- "94. Landofpetitioneris agriculturalland althoughit is in urbanized area and in developmentzone. The land continued to be agriculturalland even till issuance of Notificationunder Section 4 ofLA Act in the year 2004 would show that in spite of being in capital ofcountiy having explosive population, no residential colony, approvedor unapprovedcame up on the land in question and it would negatepossibilityofland in questionhaving potentialfor buildingsite even in nearfuture.

¶95The petitionerhas broughtno evidence, leave aside documentaryevidencethat the acquiredland was suitable •LA.App.No. ]15/20]]&connectedAppealsofVillageBamnoli Page5 v\ for putting up buildings, be they residential or commercial or industrialas the case may be. There is no building activitystartedon the land in questioneven afterpassingof a decade since area was urbanized. "

¶8On the question of potentialityof the acquired land, Reference Courthas takennote of the fact that this acquiredland is surroundedon all four sides by Villages-Bharthal, Bijwasan,Pochanpurand Dhul Siras. Noticingthat acquiredland is in the vicinity of Dwarka, where DDA is developingcolonies and therefore, adoption of the minimum rates for agricultu^rallandfixed by the GovernmentofDelhiby the Land AcquisitionCollectorwas not justified.Upon consideringthe two sale instancesof25"^ October,2004 (Ex.R-1)and of20''^ April, 2004 (Ex.E.- 2) of this very village,ReferenceCourt had discardedthe 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 considerationof ^17,45,1,08 which was found to be coiTjparable.'

¶9In the instant appeals, it was vehementlyurged on behalfofthe appellantsthat the effectofNotification,of 24"'^ October, 1994 declaring the acquired lands being fit for urbanizationand Notificationof 16^'' October,2000 regardingthe changeofland use underthe MasterPlanof Delhi has not been consideredby the ReferenceCourtto appreciatethe true potentialofthe acquiredland. Reliancewas placedupon decisionof the Apex Court in SpecialLandAcquisitionOfficer& Anr vs, MJL RaflqSaheb, (2011)7SCC 714, by learnedcounselfor the appellantsto contend that in view of the aforesaidNotifications,the acquired land cannotbe treatedas an agriculturalland for determinationofits market value.

¶10Aforesaidcontentionis noticedfor beingoutrightlyrejectedas the .A.App,No. 115/201]&connectedAppealsofVillageBamnoli Page6of15 ~acquiredlands may not to be termed as agriculturalland but they were certainlyundeveloped.Goverrmient'sminimumrates for the agricultural land applicableto Delhi have been rightly discardedby the Reference Uourt. So, reliance placed upon M,K. Rafiq Saheb (supra), is clearly ^ misplaced,as the ReferenceCourt'has determinedthe market value of the acquiredlandv^hilerelyinguponasaleexemplarofthis veryvillage.

¶11There is no questionof discardingthe aforesaidNotifications.In fact, inspiteof the aforesaidNotificationsno developmentactivit}'was there on the acquiredlands as no permission'was soughtby the OAvners ofthe acquiredlandsunderDelhiDevelopmentAct aiidtherefore,it can be safely concludedthat the acquiredlands were undevelopedand the same could not 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 acquiredlandis fully comparable with the aforesaid land and. is in proximity and therefore,the marketvalueofthe acquiredlandoughtto have been fixed with referenceto the auctionrates ofthe DelhiDevelopmentAuthority. ReferenceCourthas not onlyrelieduponthe decisionofApex Courtin Lai Chand vs. Union ofIndia andAnv., (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 decisionofthe Apex CourtinZa/CW(supra),whoseratio squarely •LA.App. No. 115/2011&connectedAppealsofVillageBamnoli ^^ applies to the instant cases. Therefore,I find that the ReferenceCourt has rightlyrefusedto apply Delhi DevelopmentAuthorityauctionrates for determiningthe marketvalueofthe,acquiredland.

¶13Whilereiteratingthe well settledprincipleoflaw that comparable sale instances,are the best piece of evidence to be consideredby the Court for the purposeof detemiiningthe compensation,Apex Court in its recent decision-in Radha Mudaliyar Vs. SpecialTahsildar(Land Acquisition Tamil Nadu Housing Board) (2010) 13 SCC 384 has observed as under:- "13. Comparablesalesinstancesare thesafestmethodfor determiningthe market value ofthe acquiredland and as A laid down in ShajiKuriakosev. Indian Oil Corpn. Ltd. it shouldsatisfy the factors, inter alia (!) the sale must he genuine transaction; (2) the sale deM must have been executedat the time proximateto the date ofissuanceof notificationunderSection4oftheAct; (3) the landcovered by the sale must be in the,vicinityofthe acquiredland; (4) the landcoveredby the sale must be 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 alone it wouldsatisfythe touchstoneoftheprinciples ^ contemplatedunder Section 23 of the Act, as held in KanwarSinghv^. 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 appellantsstands rightly rejected by the Reference Courtas the sale instancesofthis veryvillageare available.jWhenit is so, then there is no need to look for the sale instancesofthe'adjoining villages. •

¶15On the aforesaidreasoning,adoptionofthe L&DOratesto fix the marketvalueofthe acquiredlandssoughtby the appellantsis outrightly rejected. Appellants'counsel had relied upon decision of the Apex tA,App.No, 115/201rit «ed AppealsofVillage PageSofls Court in Kiran Tandon vs. AllahabadDevelopmentAuthority,(2004) 10 see 745 and in Valliyammaland Anr vs. Special Tehsildar (Land Acquisition) and Anr., AIR 2011 SC 2937 to assert that deduction of ! 40% towards developmentchargeswas improperand where Im^ge area, iiot fully developed,is acquired, normally, deduction of about 33% is . permissible. The need to look for sale instances in the vicinity is obviatedin view ofthe fact that the sale instancesofthe instantvillage are availableand so the requirementofconsideringthe 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 of no consequence.

¶16During the course of hearing, learned counsel 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 considercition ^of ^297.42 lacs per acre with 2.5% annual ground rent to claim enhancementof compensationat the rate of^40 lacsper acre over and abovethe 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 oftt,e appellants,it was pointedout by learnedseniorcomsel for the Respondentsthat aforesaidallotment by Dell. DevelopmentAuthorityto PowerDepartmentof Govermnent -^•App. No, 115/2011&connectedAppealsofVillageBamnoli i , of Delhi was made in November, 2007 and the possession of the afoiesaidlandwas 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 ofthe acquiredlands as reiteratedby the Apex Courtin GeneralManager,Oil andNaturalGas CorporationLtd vs, RameshbhaiJivanbhaiPateiand Anr, (2008) 14SCC 745, are as under:-'

¶13Primarily, 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, where the 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 ofany developmentand hardly any buyers, thepricesstagnatedforyearsor rose marginallyat a nominal rate of 1% or 2% per annum. There is thus a significantdifferencein increasesin marketvalue oflands in urban/semi-urbanareasandincreasesin marketvalueof lands in the ruralareas. Therefore,ifthe increasein market ^alue murban/semi-urbanareas is aboiit10%) to 15%per annum, the correspondingincreasesin ruralareaswouldat L^App.No. 115/20]1&connectedAppealsofVillageBamnoli ' best be only around half of it, that is about 5% to 7.5%per annum. This rule of thumb refers to the general trend in the nineties, to be adopted in the absence of clear and specific evidence relating to increase in prices. Where there are special reasonsfor 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.

¶15Normally, recourse is taken to the mode of determining the market value by providing appropriate escalation over theproved marketvalue 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. Thesaid method is reasonably safe where the relied-on sale transactions/ " acquisitionsprecede the subject acquisitionby only a few years, that is uptofour tofive years. Beyondthat it may be unsafe, even ifit relatesto a neighbouringland. What may be a reliablestandardif the gap is only afew years, may become unsafe and unreliablestandardwhere the gap is larger.For example,for determiningthe marketvalue ofa land acquired in 1992, adopting the annual increase methodwith referenceto a sale,or acquisitionin 1970 or 1980 may have many pitfalls. This is because, over the course ofyears, the "rate" of annual increase may itself undergo drastic change apart from the likelihood of occurrenceof varyingperiods of stagnation in prices or sudden spurts in prices affecting the very standard of increase. "

¶19Being mindful of the ratio of the decisionof the Apex Court in fONGC (supra), I fmd that the instance of institutional allotment (Ex.PWlS/l)of the year 2007 heavily rehed upon by the appellants wouldnot be ausefulguideto determinethe marketvalue ofthe land in question, as the said allotmentwas made after aperiod of three years from the date ofacquisitionofthe land in question.It is so said because the sale exemplarofthe relevantperiodofthisveryvillagein questionis LA.App. No. 115/20II&connectedAppealsofVillageBamnoli , Page 11 of15 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 (Ex.R-1)reliedupon by the ReferenceCourtis a comparableinstanceor not. Undiaputedly,sale instance(Ex.El-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. Findingofthe ReferenceCourtthat when the sale instance(Ex.R-1)was I 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 aforesaidfinding of the ReferenceCourt, it was submittedby learnedcounsel for the appellantsthat opportunityto lead rebuttalevidenceto show that sale instance(Ex.R-1)is not reliable orbonafide, an applicationto leadrebuttalevidencewas filed beforethe ReferenceCourt which was illegallyrejectedvide order of25"^ August, 2010 and therefore, this matter needs to be remanded back to the Reference Court to enable the appellantsto lead rebuttal evidence to demolishaforesaidsale instance(Ex.R-1).

¶22Firstofall, appellantsoughtto have objectedto the exhibitionof aforesaidsale instance(Ex.R-1).Havingnot done so, appellantshave to face the legal consequences. Secondly, even if, application of the LA.App,No. ]15/2011& connectedAppealsofVillageBamnoli V? appellantsfor leading rebuttal evidencewas 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 hearing,nothingwas urgedto show as to how the sale instance(Ex.R-1) is not genuine/reliableor comparable. [

¶23In the light of the evidence on record, I am of the considered opinionthatthe ReferenceCourthas rightlyreliedupon the saleinstance (Ex.R-1)to determinethe marketvalueofthe acquiredlands.Findingno merit in the instantappeals of claimantsand cross-objectionby one of them, the same are dismissedwhile leavingthe partiesto bear theirown costs.

¶24So far as appeals of the Respondentsare concerned,I find no substancein them, becausethe determinationofthe marketvalue ofthe acquiredland by the ReferenceCourthas been done whilerelyingupon the sale instance (Ex.R-1) produced by the Respondentsthemselves. Regardingdoing away ofthe classificationofthe acquiredland into 'A' block and 'B' Block by the ReferenceCouri is concerned,I find that this classificationhas areasonablebasis. That is to say, land with top soil and the landwithouttop soil cannotbe put at par as the marketvalue ofthe landwithouttop soil is boundto be lesserthanthe marketvalueof the land with top soil.

¶25Endorsingthe price differentiationbetween'A' categoryland and 'B' category land, my esteemed brother Pradeep Nandrajog, J., in a recentdecisionin LA.App.No.266/2008,titledas JaiSingh &Ors. vs. Union ofIndia cS Ors., renderedon 23''^August2011, whilerelyingon the decision of the Division Bench of this court in Gajraj Singh vs. UnionofIndia, 2006 (VI) AD Delhi 13, has held as under:- •LA.App. No. 1]5/2011&connectedAppealsofVillageBamnoli Page 13 of ]15 "56. In 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 Categoiy 'A ' landdeterminedwas 76,121/-per acre and for 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 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 whereverCategory 'A ', Category • ,'; 'B'and Category 'C have to be differentiatedonprice, the differential should be 2.5%. " '^^1^

¶26Consequentially,the findingofthe ReferenceCourtregardingthe A categoryand 'B' categoryland beingsimilarlysituatedhavingsame ,potentialityand becausethey are acquiredfor the same publicpurpose, cannot be sustainedin the lightofthe aforesaidobservations.However, the claim of the Union of India, to seek adoption,of the minimum indicativeprice of agriculturalland in Delhi while forgettingth£it the Appellant-UOI itselfhas reliedupon the sale instance(Ex.R-1),merits rejection.

¶27In viewofthe,afore-goingnarration,I find thatno substancein the appeals filed by claimants as well as in cross objectionof one ofthe ^ claimantsand the same are dismissed. So far as the appeals filed by Union ofIndiaare concerned,the same are partly allowedto 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/-peracre.

¶28Beforepartingthis 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&connectedAppealsofVillageBamnoli Pace 14 of:15 purposefiillynot 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.

¶29The 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 NIL GAUH.) -A.App.No. 115/2011&connectedAppealsofVillageBamnoli ,5 jg

* % + % IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI LA.APP. 506/2011 ATTAR SINGH Through: versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR Thi'ough: Reserved on: January 12. 2012 Pronounced on: February 01. 2012 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.Routray,Advocates(in R-74 and for respondent on R-79) Respondent 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) CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR