Vineet Saluja v. Union of India & Anr

ORDER

01.02.2012 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 DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on: Jamiar\' 12, 2011 Pronounced on: February 01. 2012 LA.APP. 115/2011(VILLAGEBAMNOLI) JAIPRAELASH Through: versus UNION OF INDIA & A^ Through: LA.APP. 16/2011 L. LA.APP. 1-9/2011 , L LA.APP. 22./2011 L, LA.APP. 90/2011 L. LA.APP. 93/2011 L l,.A.App.No. 115/20118l connectedAppeals ••.X-;;- I® Appellant Mii.B.S.Maari,Mr.AmitMaan, Mr.R.S.Verma, Mr|jaiPrakash,Ms.SmitaMaan and Mr.Jitin Tewathia,Advocates(R-14-16,22, 30, 34, 38-45,5,1-53) Mr;.Mohinder Singh Charak, Advocate for appellantin R-112 andrespondentin R-63 j Mr.B.D.Sharma,Mr.S.K.Rout, | | Mi-.B.K.Routray,Mr.Vinay Kumar, Advocates in (R-84to 86, 88-102,104) I Mr.S.K.RoutandMr.B.K.Routray,Advocates (in R-74 and forrespondenton R-79) ! Respondents Mr^Sanjay Poddar, Senior Advocate with Mr.SanjayPathalc,Ms.NavlinSwain, : MsjK.K.Kiranand Mr.S.N.Pandey,Advocates forUOI Mr. YeeshuJain, Advocatefor UOI (R-1 to 5, 18-37,47, 49,50-52, 55-73,75-81, 113-123 ' Mr.ArunBirbal,Mr.BanlceyBihariSharma, MslAiiiitaSingh,Mr.S.K.Sethiand Mr.Kunaij Sharma,AdvocatesforDDA in (R-74-77& 80)i VIr.MohinderSinghCharak,Advocate(R-631 md'112) 'AND

4.APP. 17/2011 A..APP. 20/2011 \.APP. 23/20.11 \.APP. 91/2011 \.APP. 94/2011 of Village Bamnoli f-'' LA.APP. 18/2011 LA.APP. 21/2011 LA.APP. 24/2011 LA.APP. 92/2011 IvA.APP. 95/2011 ! ( & I I 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. 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 316/2011 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. :.A.APP. .A.APP. ^a.'app. ^A.APP. LA.APP. LA.iAPP. LA.App. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.^P. LA.APP. iJa.|pp. iJa.app. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.XPP. LA.APP. la.App. LA.APP. LA.^P. LA.APP. LA.APP. lA.app. La LA L/. LA LA LA. LA LA •APP. .APP. .APP. .Ai>P. •A#. •Al^p. •Al^p. •App. Relatingto Notification issued under Section 4 of tl d/2007-2008of06.08.2008, HA.App.No. ]15/2011& connectedAppealso 133/2011 LA.APP. 166/2011 168/2011 172/2011 175/2011 179/2011 187/2011 193/2011 205/2011 208/2011 211/2011 264/2011 276/2011 295/2011 305/2011 308/2011 311/2011 314/2011 317/2011 320/2011 352/2011 356/2011 359/2011 490/2011 493/2011 497/2011 501/2011 504/2011 507/2011 524/2011 5'74/2011 577/2011 645/2011 278/2011 281/2011 284/2011 288/2011 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. LAAPP 170/2011 173/2011 176/2011 ^83/2011 1:89/2011 i;94/2011 206/2011 209/2011 260/2011 266/2011 286/2011 303/2011 306/2011 309/2011 312/2011 315/2011 . 318/2011 . 321/2011 . 354/2011 357/2011 363/2011 491/2011 494/2011. 498/2011 502/2011 505/2011 512/2011 533/2011 575/201 ClZSp. 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) o.9(50)/2004/L&B/LA/1321Lof 04.11.2004 eI^andAcquisitionAct, 1894&AwardNo.j VillageBamnoli,New Delhi) Village Bamnoji B % CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICll SUNIL GAUR

¶1Above captionedipppalsand cross-objectionsrelateto acquisi of about 2100 bighas of land in Village Bamnoli, Delhi notified PlannedDevelopmentofDelhi vide Notificationof 4"^ November,2 under the LandAcquisiiion.Act, 1894 and since the impugnedorder of •the ReferenceCourt in heSe appealsuniformlygrants compensatioiiat the rate of?17,45,000/-eracre with statutorybenefits,therefore,v\[ith the consentof learnedcounselfor the parties,who were presentat the .final hearing,.these-matters were .heard together and are being adjudicatedupon bythis commonorder :ollectorwhilerelyinguponthe indicativeprice fixedby GovernmentofNCT ofDelhi for ^.griculturalland in Delhi Lr the periodin question,had determinedthe marketvalue ofthe acquired land in questionat the aforesaidrate of 5,70,000/-peracre oflevelled land in Block A, wherees for the acquiredland excavatedbeyond one meter. I.e., Block B lane, compensationwas determinedat the ratelof p4,13,000/-peracre.

¶3Not satisfied witl: Collector, before the Re upon Notification of 2' Corporation of Delhi de instant village to be i Notification of le"" Octol acquired land in question ORDER

01.02.:: ;ion for the aforesaid Award of Land Acquisiti(Dn erence Court, appellants/claimantshad relied October, 1994 issued by the Municipal glaring the land in 20 villages including the rbajnized. Reliance was also placed upin 'er"2000declaringchange of land use of the i and thereupon,Delhi DevelopmentAuthority had preparedZonalDevelopmentPlan for DwarkaSub City in Dwarka I LA.App.No.115/201]&connectedAppealsofVillageBamnoli Pages of 15 New Delhi.

¶4While relying upon seven sale instances(Ex.PW-1/7to Ex.'PW-1/13)ofthe year 1999,;relafingto agriculturallandin VillagePochanpur purchased by a religipus society —Radha Swami Satsang, Beas, and .certifiedcopy of Sale Deed of 27^'' September,.2004 (Ex.PW-1/14)of cement in compensationwas sought. Reference. Village Bharthal, enhan ]l0 Court upon evaluationof the evidence on record concludedthat there was no evidence to the the effect that location,potentialand utility of land in the VillagesofBharthal,Pochanpurand Bamnoliis similarand had chosen not to rely upon! the aforesaidsale instances as the s|ale instanceofthis veryvilkigewas available.

¶5In the absence o aforesaid sale instances sale instancesrelied upoi f the evidence of the Vendor/Vendee of the ' i Reference Court had discarded the aforesaid : , • I by the appellants/claimants,whileadvertingto paragraphno: 29 ofthe Apex Courtdecisionin Lai Chand Vnion of India and Am., (2009] 15 SCC 769. Before dealing with the skle instances(Ex.R-Iand Ex-R-H)ofVillageBamnoli,ReferenceCourthad i refused to apply Delhi commercial plots or the DevelopmentAuthority auction rate for the scheduleofmarket rates for Vasant Vihar by placingimplicitreliance upon the -'AlDex Cdurt decision in Lai Chand (supra) to hold that' market price for the developed land cannot' applied while determining^ the market, price of the undevelop agricultural land in Delhi.

¶6To fortifythe afor(;saitifinding,RefefenceCourt has extensively .thc'Apex ^ourtdecisionin Lai Chand(supra) quoted the passages from and thereafl;er,had proceededto discardheavilyreliedupon instance' , allotment of J4.5 acres [ Authority to the Power D l.A.App.No. 115/20]] & connectedAppealsof Village Bamnoli be 3d of of the acquired land by C)elhi Developmeit !part.mentof Government of NCT of Delhi for construction of 715 holding as under "77. The allotmk ^297.42 lakh per Buyer and sellei development/ co question without of the Delhi premium for allots ordinary sale betw of land in such c price of land whi sitting in his armc M(;ga|WattGas Based Power Plant/Project,^ 'ntof1.5hectareojlandfar apremiumof acre is an inter departmental allotment both are agencies of state. Since no struction can take place on the land in oermissionofDDA in view of Section12 'veiopment Act, 1957 determinktion of nehtoflandin developmentarea {s notan veeh a prudent buyerand seller. Premium n allotment cannot be called the market ich\a prospectivebuyer of similar land hairwouldbe willingtopay. Dk

¶78date of Notificati

04.11.2004 and Moreover,there is a tirnegap ofthreeyears between ion under Section 4 of LA Act which is date of allotment which is 25.11.2007. Marketprice ofland]allottedafter 3years ofNotification under Section ^ of LA Act cannot be taken into considerationfor determiningmarketvalue on the date of •Notificationunder Section 4. As per Section24 ofLA Act, the Courtshallnet take into considerationany increaseto the valueofthe ld:idacquiredlikely0 accruefrom the use to which it will beput when required.?' hile

¶7• On the aspect of th being in the development Reference Court are as liiider;- acquiredland beingdeclaredurbanizedand!of zone, the pertinentfindings returned by the "94. Land ofpeti in urbanized arec continued to be Notification under would show that having explosive approvedor unap^, and it would negai potential for buildii

¶95The petitione documentary evidei ^A'ArP-No. 115/201]& connectedAppeal; Horier is agriculturalland althoughit is dr^d in developmentzone. The land Agriculturalland even till issuance of Section 4 of LA Act in the year 2004 n spite of being in capital of country population, no residential colony, royed came up on the land in question epossibilityofland in questionhaving igsite even in near future. r has brought no evidence, leave aside ice'that the acquired land was suitable of yillage Bamnoli Pages of IS for puttingup buiidings, be they residentialor commercial he [case may be. There is no building the[landin questioneven afterpassingof 2 was urbanized. " or industrial as .i activity started on a decade since are

¶8On the question o Courthas takennote ofttiefact that this acquiredland is surroundedon all four sides by Villages Bharthal, Bijwasan,Pochanpurand Dhul Siras. Noticingthat acqiired land is in the vicinityof Dwarka, where DDA is developingcolonies and therefore,adoption of the minimum rates for agriculturallandfixpd by the GovernmentofDelhiby the Land AcquisitionCollectorwas not justified.Upon consideringthe two sale instancesof25^^ October,20P4 (Ex.R-1)and of20"^ April,2004 (Ex.L 2) of this very village.ReferenceCourthad discardedthe sale instance (Ex.R-2) as sale considerationof ?9,02,496per acre was found to be depressed and had chossn to rely upon the sale instance (Ex.R~:) depicting sale consideration;of ?;i7,45"108 which was found to be comparable." j eIs, it was vehementiyurged on behalfof the -fNotificationof24 October, 1994 declaring fit Ifor urbanizationand Notificationof 16* :e changeofland use underthe MasterPlan of 5red by the ReferenceCourtto appreciatethe id land. Reliancewas placeduporidecisionof Land AcquisitionOfficer& Am RajiqSaheb,(2011)7SCC 714, byteamedcounselfor the appellaDfsto contend that in view of the aforesaidNotifications,the acquired land cannotbe treateda? an agriculturalland for determinationofits marke value.

¶10Aforesaidcontentionis noticedfor beingoutrightlyrejectedas the

¶9In the instant appee appellants that the effect c the acquired lands being October,2000 regardingtl: Delhi has not been considi truepotentialof the acquire the Apex Court in Specia f potentialityof the acquired land, Reference LA.App.No. 115/201]&connectedAppealsofVillageBamnol Page 6 of IS IV acquired lands may not certainly undeveloped. C land applicable to Delhi Court. So, reliance placj misplaced, as the Refere the acquired land v^hile 11There is no questio fact, inspiteof the afore| there on the acquiredIan of the acquired lands und be safely concluded that same could not be comp marketvalue of the acqu counsel upon Udho Dass 41 is 'of no avail. ;o I I • be termed as agriculturalland but they were ovemment's minimum rates for the agricultiral have been rightly discarded by the Reference id upon M.K, Rafiq Sakeb (supra), is clearly I-nee Court has determined the market value of rayinguponasaleexemplarofthis veryvillage. I •n of discarding the aforesaid Notifications.!In laid Notificationsno developmentactiviityWas ds as no .pemnissionwas soughtby the owners er DelhiDevelopmentAct and therefore,it can thei acquiredlands were undevelopedand the ired with developedlands for deterDiiningthe ired land. Thus, relianceplacedby appellant's vs. StateofHaryana & Ors., 2010 (9) SCALE

¶12Rejection of auction rates of Delhi DevelopmentAuthority, in Sector 20 and 22 of Dwarka, by the Reference Court, is assailed by Doellantsby contendingthatthe acquiredLandis tie aforesaid land,and is in proximity and therefore,the marketvalu(5ofthe acquiredlandoughtto have been fixJd with referenceto the auctionrates ofthe DelhiDevelopmentAuthority. ReferenceCourthas not only:reliedupon the decisionofApex Courtin Lai Chand vs. Union ofIndia and Am., (2009) 15 SCC 769 but Has extensivelyquoted relevant passages therefrom to hold that the sale considerationof the devebpe^dlands cannot be appliedto the acquired lands which are undispuledlyundeveloped. At the hearing in these fori the appellant could not distinguish tlio learnedcounselfor the ap fully comparable with appeals, learned: counsel decisionofthe Apex Courtin,Lai Chand(supra),whoseratio squarely LA.App.No. 115/2011 connectedAppeals(ifVillage-Bamnoli-applies to the instant case has rightlyrefusedto^appl; for determiningthe marlce

¶13Whilereiteratingthi sale instances, are the be; Court for the purposeof. its recent decision -in Rak^ Acquisition Tamil .Nadu observed as under:- ' •• therefore,:I find that the ReferenceCourt ly Delhi Dev.elopmentAuthorityauctionrates valueofthe acquiredland. well settledprincipleoflaw that comparab: t piece of evidenceto be consideredby the determiningthe compensation.Apex Courtri 7m Mudaliyar Vs. SpecialTahsildar(Land Housing Board) (2010) 13 ,SCC 384 has "13. Comparable s determining4he mat laid down in Shaji1 should satisfy-the fc'.i genuine transaction executed at the time notification under Se by the sale must be i the land coveredby, landand(5) size ofifi^ be comparable to the should preferably be then alone it would s contemplated under Kanwar Singh vs. Un lies instancesare the safestmethodfor •ket\value of the acquired land and as vuriakosev. Indian Oil Corpn. Ltd., it ictors, inter alia (I) the sale must be

(2) the sale deed must have been proximateto, the^.dateof issuanceof --Mon 4 of the Act; (3) the land covered nthe vicinity.ofthe acquiredland; (4) t^esale must be similarto the acquired heplotofthe landcoveredby the sale acquired land. The sales instances closest to the date of notificationas atisfy the touchstoneoftheprinciples Section 23; of the Act, as held in 'on ofIndia. ;

¶14Fixation of the marke the sale instances(Ex.PW-as sought by the appellant (pourt as the sale instances ^o; then there is no need to villages.

¶15On the aforesaid reasc marketvalue ofthe acquired rejected. Appellants' counsel LA.App.No..115/2011& connectedAppealsof !t value of the acquiredland on the basis of Ijo Ex.PW-1/14)ofthe adjoiningvillages, stands rightly rejected by the Reference of this very village are available.When it is loc^k for the sale instancesofthe adjoining 1/7 ning, adoptionofthe L&DO rates to fix the! lands soughtby the appellantsis outrightlyj had relied upon decision of the Apexi /illageBamnoli Page8of15 I •i V • Court in Kiran Tandon y |0 see 745 and in Valliy Acquisition) and Am., 40% towards developmen not fully developed, is a permissible. The need tc obviated in view of the fa are available and so the r the sale instances (Ex.P'W sale instance (Ex.R-1) i reference to the aforesaid ( is of no consequence.

¶16During th4 course c had strongly relied upon acres approximately) by Department"ofDelhi Gov^r of "^297.42 lacs per acre enhancementof compensa above the market value fix , the aforesaid land was out it was asserted by learned allotment is clearly con compensation ought to be be at par with the aforej Government of Delhi.

¶17To meet the aforesaid by learned senior counsel ; by Delhi DevelopmentAul .'f'" iz.•) s. 'Allahabad DevelopmentAuthority,(20Q I animal and Anr vs. Special Tehsildar (Land j I .R 2011 SC 2937 to assert that deduction !c>f chargeswas improperand where large area, acquired, normally, deductionof about 33%jis look for sale instances in the vicinity|is zt that thd sale instancesof the instantvillage •equirement of consideringthe applicability|of -1/7 to Ex.PW-1/14)would arise only whei found to be not, comparable. Therefore, decisionsby learnedcounselfor the appellants Al IS f hearing, learned counsel for the appellants le instanceof allotmentof 14.5 hectares(37 Delhi DevelopmentAuthority to the Powei: •nment on leasehold basis at a consideration I with 2.5% annual ground rent to claim :ion at the rate of ^40 lacsper acre over anc -d by the ReferenceCourt as the allotmento; of the acquired land. With much vehemence I counsel for the appellantsthat the aforesaid iparable and therefore, on its basis the enhancedwhile treatingthe acquiredland tc ; . • i aidj land allotted to Power Department cif tl: LA.App.No. 115/2011& connectedAppealso: stand of the appellants,it was pointedout br ^he Respondentsthat aforesaidallotment hority to Power Departmentof Government Village Bamnoli r [f of Delhi was made in aforesaid land was handed of Delhi in February,2008 of November, 2004 and steadily increased and ther4: basis to determine the i: 'I interveninggap is ofthree]

¶18The factors to be CO acquired lands as reiterated and Natural Gas Corporati Anr, (2008) 14 SCC 745, ai "13. Primarily, the four factors: situation surrounding area, a the area, and the de areas, unless there i vicinit)^, increase in gradual, without any hand, in urban or sen isfaster, where the de is construction activi price is at a much hig. In some pockets in high demand for la touched eyen 30% tc nineties. ovemter, 2007 and the possession of the I ' » ' over to the Power Department of Government j and the acquisitionof the land in questionis '(juring the interveningperiod land rates had fore, aforesaid allotment caimot be made the market value of the acquired land as the years. ; ' , I i •" ' ' trjisideredto determinethe marketvalue of the byjthe Apex Court,in GeneralManager,Oil on \Ltdvs' RameshbhaiJivanbhaiPateland, e as under:- inerease in land prices depends on oj the land, natureofdevelopmentin 'ailabilityof landfor developmentin 'Mdndfor land in the area. In rural ^ahy prospect of development in the prices would be slow, steady and suddenspurts orjumps. On the other i-urbanareas, where the development mandfor land is highand wherethere all around, the escalation in market 'hei\rate, as comparedto rural areas, g cities, due to rapid developmentand nd,<^ the escalations in prices have 50% or more per year, during the W

¶14On the other extrep^e, in remote rural areas where there was no chance of.any developmentand hardly any buyers,^thepricesstagnatedforyears or rose marginallyat a nominal rate of 1% oi\ 2%, per annum. There is thus a in increasesin marketvalue of lands redp and increasesin marketvalueof s. Therefore,ifthe increasein market •ban areas is about 10% to 15%per significant difference in urban/semi-urban a lands in the rural area value in urban/semi-u j ^ i/vv X\j / \j XU/O annum, the correspondingincreasesin rural areas wouldat LA.ApiD.No. 115/2011& connectedAppealsofVillageBamnoli 0^ best.be only around annum. This rule ofih nineties, to be adopt evidence relating to special reasons for any specific evidenc prices, then the incrh' the same.

¶15Normally, reic determining the ma escalation over the p previous years (as acquisitions), wherk contemporaneous sc comparable lands in reasonably safe wh acquisitioris precede years, that is uptofq •pinsafe, even if it relat be a reliable standa? become unsafe and larger. For example, lah4 acquired in method with referem 1980 may have mar course of years, the undergo drastic chh occurrence. of varyin sudden spurts in pi increase. " halfof it, that is about 5% to 7.5%per ''uMb refers to the^!generaltrend in the •d in the absence of clear and specific increase in prices. Where there are applying a higher rate of increase, or r^elating to the actual increase in •ase to be applied would depend upon ^.ourse is taken . to the mode of rket value by providing appropriate roved market value of nearby lands in evidenced by sale transactions or there is no , evidence of any lie transactions or acquisitions of 'he neighbourhood. The said method is ere\ the relied-on sale transactions/ the subjectacquisitionby only a few w tofive years. Beyondthat it may be "es'to a neighbouringland. What'may •d if the gap is only afew years, may mreliable standard where the gap is for, determiningthe marketvalue ofa 1992, adopting the annual increase e to a sale or acquisition iri 1970 or y pitfalls. This is because, over the 'rate" of annual increase may itself mge apart from the likelihood of g periods of stagnation in prices or ices affecting the very standard of

¶19Being mindM ofthe ratio ofthe decisionofthe Apex Court in ONGC (supra),^ I find tiat; the instance of institutional allotment (Ex.PWlS/l)of the year :2007 heavily relied upon by the appellants to determine the market value of the land in lent!was made after a period of three years of the land in question. It is so said because would not be a useful guide question, as the said allotm irom the date of acquisition the sale exemplarofthe relevantperiodofthisveryvillagein questionis LA.App.No. 115/2011& connectedAppealsofVillage Bamnoli, Page 11 of IS n . R [ ' available.Therefore,the a]bresaidinstance of allotment of land to the . ' I PowerDepartmentofGovdrmnentofDelhi has been rightlyrejectedby the Reference Court. -

¶20Now what is required {Ex.R-1) relied upon by the Notification of November, to ibe consideredis whetherthesale instance ReferenceCourtis a comparableinstanceor not. Undisputedly,sale instance(Ex.R-1)is ofthis very villageand is of October, 2004 whereas ihe ;land in question was acquired vide 2004. Evidently, aforesaid sale instance (Ex.R-1)is not onlyrelevantbi^t is comparableas it has not been shown by the appellants as to what ar6 the distinguishing features which would make it inapplicableto deteimifiethe marketvalueofthe acquiredlands. Fmdingofthe ReferenceCcurtjthatwhen the sale instance(Ex.R~l)was exhibitedno objectionwas raisedby the claimantsand as per section51-A.of Land Acquisition Act, )894, a certified copy of a registered documentis acceptablein: (evidence and since this documenthas been tenderedin evidenceby the Respondents,the same can be read against them,remainsunimpeachable. ' I

¶21I-Iowever,to meet the aforesaidfmdingofthe ReferenceCourt, it ' I was submittedby learnedcounselfor the appellantsthat opportunityto, lead rebuttalevidenceto shewthat sale instance(Ex.R-1)is not reliable or bonafide, an application Reference Court which was to Iqadrebuttal evidence was filed before the^ I illegallyrejectedvide order of25"' August,! 2010 and therefore, this matter needs to be remanded back to the^ Reference Court to enable.i;he iappellantsto lead rebuttal evidence to' 4emolishaforesaidsaleinstancel(Ex.R-l). ^ • I

¶22First of all, appellants Aforesaidsale instance(Ex.R face, the legal consequence ought to have objected to the exliibition of -1).| Havingnot done so, appellantshave to I s. Secondly, even if application of the! No. 115/2011& connectedAppealsofAtillage Bamnoli . • IQ appellants for leading rebittal evidencewas rejectedby the Reference Court,nothingh^d stoppedthem from movingan applicationfor leading additional evidence in the ( • the sale instance (Ex.R-1

¶23In the light of the: opinion that the Reference appeal to lead evittence in order to demolis ). Not only this, even during the course of hearing,nothingwas urgedtojshowas, to how the saleinstance(Ex.R-i) is notgenuine/rehableor c^mjparable. ' | 3vi|ence on recori I am of the considered iCourthas rightlyrelieduponthe sale instana; (Ex.R-1)to determinetheSriarlptvalueofthe acquiredlands.Findingn(» merit in tjie instantappealsof claimantsand cross-objectionbv one o; them, the same are dismiss3d while leavingthe partiesto bear theirowr costs. . , . , • - I ' . ' i • . • I ,24. , ,So far as appeals o:' the Respondentsare concerned,I find no substancein them, becausethq determination'ofthe marketvalue ofthe acquiredland by the ReferenceCourthas beeil done whilerelyingupon the sale instance (Ex.R-1) produced by the Respondentsthemselves. Regardingdoing away ofthe classificationofthe acquiredland into block and 'B' Block by th(5 ReferenceCourt,: is concerned,I find that this classificationhas area^on^lebasis. That is to say, land with top soil and the landwithouttop sojl cannotbe putat par as the marketvalue ofthe landwithouttop soilis b^undto be lesserthanthe marketvalueof the land with top soil.

¶25Endorsingthe pricedfferentiationbetween'A' categoryland and 'B', category land, my esjeemed brother Pradeep Nandrajog, J., in a 'recentdecisionin LA.App.Nofe66/2008,titledas JaiSingh&Ors. vsl UnionofIndia&Ors., rei^deredOn 23'"^.August2011, whilerelyingon the decision of the DivisionBench of this court in GajrajSingh vs. Delhi 13, has held as under:- UnionofIndia, 2006 (VI)A LX,App.No. 115/2011&connectedAppealsof Village Bamnoli Page 13 of IS n t ' • "56. In Gajraj SiHgt worked out was heretnabo^^ that th pertained to the date price for Category U acre and for Categp ^9, 51,121/- per acre about 2,5% with re, land. case (supra), the price differential '<25>,000/- per acre. I have note.d I acquisition in Gajraj Singh's case

15.11.1996.In Gajraj Singh's case the \land determinedw.as ^9,76,121/-per ry 'B' land the price determined was and the price differential comes to ference to the^ price of Category 'A ' vv^V;

¶57I thus hold thd guiding star for pri^> w^ll and thus I:hold 'B' and Category 'C dijferehtialshould be (^raj Singh's cp.se should be niy 'e differential in the instant cases as that whereverCategory 'A', Category/ have to be differentiatedonprice, the ! i . ' \ ,

2.5%."

¶26Consequentially, th0 'A'-c^gory and categc findingofthi^ ReferenceCourtregardingthe ry land beingsimilarlysituatedhavingsame ,; potentialityand becausetljoy^re acquiredfoptthe same pubHc purpose, ghi ofthe aforesaidobservations.Howevei^ cannot be sustained in the !! the claim of the!Union India, to seek adoption of the indicativeprice of agricuiuraljland in Delhi while forgettingthat the Appellant-UOI itselfhasjrelieduponthe sale instance(Ex.Rl-l),merit^ ij*ejection.

27.; Inviewofth&afore-gbingnarration,I findthatno substancein the as well as in cross objectionof one ofIthe appeals filed by claimant^ minimum claimantanxd thei same are dismissed. So fkr as the appeals filed;by . Union of India are concern that the corhpenskion a\4i ied,.the same are pagly allowedto the extent iardejd by the Reference Court for the 'B' ; category:oflands;(as notjc^djjnthe Award of the Land Acqiisition Collector) is reduced from t : ^28. Beforepartingthis oiri I'V-7,45,000peracreto ^17,01^375/-peracre. ler, I would like tci^bring,on recordthat the ;brevity of this order is 0cca|ioned by the fact that the impugned judgment is well consideredon facAs tod the law. Therefore,I have L;-|.App.No.'115/20]i & connectedAppealsof \/illafeeBamnoli' • t-' i., Page 14pf 15^ f •• • ' V , • • \ ft' " ' •-C purposefully not adverted rekvant evidence, i.e. of consideration by me in this <

¶29The above captioned with directionto the Registi depositedby either side wit concerned Reference Court. February OX, 2012 pkb/rs ;J,A.App. No. 11mi I&connectedAppealsof Vill to Ithe entire•evidence on record and the the sale exemplars has been taken into )rder. appeals and cross-objectionare disposedo t9 remitthe com|)ensationamount;ifany the RegistrarGeneralofthis Court, to the JUDGE ige Bamnoli

o % + % IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI LA.APP. 590/2011 VINEET SALUJA Through: versus Reserved on: January 12. 2012 Pronounced on: February Oh 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.MohinderSingh Charak, Advocate for appellantin 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) UNION OF INDIA & ANR Through: 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 forDDAin(R-74-77&80) Mr.Mohinder Singh Gharak, Advocate (R-63 and 112) CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR