Union of India v. Tarawati & Anr

ORDER

01.02.2012 For orders see LA.App. No.l 15/2011,titled as Jai Prakash v^. UnionofIndia & Am. FEBRUARY 01, 2012 pkb flL GAUR) JUDGE ^v|jr fs % IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI Al' NEW DELHI Reserved on: Januar\' 12, 2011 Pronounced on: February 01, 2012 LA.APP. 115/2011 (VILLAGE BAMNOLI) • JAIPRAKASH Through: Appellant Mr.B.S.Maan, Mr.Amit Maan, Mr.R.S.Verma, Mr.Jai 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 Mi-.B.D.Sharma, Mi'.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. P>.espondents Through: Mr.Sanjay Poddar, Senior Advocate with Mr.Sanjay Pathak, Ms.Navlin Swain, Ms.K.K.Kiran and Mr.S.N.Paridey, Advocates forUOI •• 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.Banlcey Bihari 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 LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. 18/2011 21/2011 24/2011 92/2011 95/2011 -.A.App.No. 115/2011& connectedAppealsofVillageBamnoli , f' f i ''Ji ^ r t' \ ^ h ^ i ^ J 'iifllli jiiiil*! § : 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.^PP. 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 310/201.1 313/2011 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. 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 308/2011 311/2011 314/2011 317/2011 320/2011 352/2011 356/2011 359/2011 490/2011 493/2011 497/2011 501/2011 504/2011 507/2011 524/2011 574/2011 577/2011 645/2011 278/2011 281/2011 284/2011 288/2011 LA.APP. 166/2011 LA.APP. 170/2011 LA.APP. 173/2011 LA.APP. 176/2011 LA.APP. 183/2011 LA.APP. 189/2011 LA.APP, 194/2011 LA.APP. 206/2011 LA.APP. 209/2011 LA.APP. 260/2011 LA.APP. 266/2011 LA.APP. 286/2011 • LA.APP. 303/2011 LA.APP.30^/2011 LA.APP. 309/2011 LA.APP. 312/2011 LA.APP. 315/2011 , LA.APP. 318/2011 LA.APP. 321/2011 LA.APP. 354/2011 LA.APP. 357/2011 LA.APP. 363/2011 LA.APP. 491/2011 LA.APP. 494/2011 LA.APP. 498/2011 ' LA.APP. 502/2011 LA.APP. 505/2011 LA.APP. 512/2011 LA.APP. 533/2011 LA.APP. 575/2011 LA.APP. 590/2011 LA.APP. 638/2011 LA.App. 279/2011 LA.App. 282/2011 : LA.App. 285/2011 LA.APP. 184/2011 & C.M.No. 10953/2011 (Cross-objection) (Relatingto NotificationNo.9(50)/2004/L&B/LA/13211of 04 11 2004 ^A.App.No. II5/20J1&connectedAppealsofVillageBamnoli •-J CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR O RD E %

01.02.2012

¶1Above captionedappealsand cross-objectionsrelateto acquisition of about 2100 bighas of land in Village Bamnoli, Delhi notified for PlannedDevelopmentof Delhi vide Notificationof 4^*^ November,2004 under,the LandAcquisitionAct, 1894 and since the impugnedorder of the ReferenceCourt in these appealsuniformlygrants compensationat the rate of ^17,45,000per acre with statutorybenefits,therefore,,with the consentoflearned counsel for the parties, who were presentat the final hearing, these matters were heard together and are being adjudicatedupon by this common order.

¶2LandAcquisitionCollectorwhilerelyinguponthe indicativeprice fixed by Governmentof NCT of Delhi for agriculturalland in Delhi for the periodin question,had determinedthe marketvalue ofthe acquired land in questionat the aforesaidrate of?15,70,000/-per acre ofleveled land in Block A, whereas for the acquiredland excavatedbeyond one meter, i.e., Block B land, compensationwas determinedat the rsite of ?14,13,000/-per acre. -5. Not satisfied with the aforesaid Av/ard 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 le'"^ 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 .V New Delhi.

¶4While relying upon seven sale instances (Ex.PW-1/7 to Ex.PW-1/13)ofthe year 1999,relatingto agriculturalland in VillagePochanpur purchased by a religious society - Radha Swami Satsang, Beas, and certifiedcopy of Sale Deed of 27"' September,2004 (Ex.PW-1/14)of VillageBharthal,enhancementin compensationwas sought. Reference Court upon evaluation of the evidence on record concluded that there was no evidenceto the effect that location,potentialand utility of the land in the Villagesof Bharthal,Pochanpurand Bamnoliis similarand had chosen not to rely upon the aforesaid sale instances as the.Sale instanceof this 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 Ann, (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 Vasa(itVihar by placing implicitrelianceupon the Apex Court decision in 'Lai Chand (supra) to hold that market price for the developed land cannot be applied while determining the market price of the, undeveloped agriculturalland in Delhi.

¶6To fortifythe aforesaidfinding,ReferenceCourt has extensively quotedthepassagesfrom the Apex Courtdecisionin LaiChand(supra) and thereafter.I,ad proceededto discardheavilyreliedupon instanceof allotmentof 14,5 acres of the acquired land by Delhi Development Authorityto the PowerDepartmentofGovernmentofNCT ofDelhi for LA.App.No.115/201]&connectedAppealsofVillageBamnoli Page4oflS \y^ constructionof 715 Mega Watt Gas Based Power Plant/Project,while holding as under:- : . "77. The allotmentof1.5hectareoflandforapremiumof "^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 allotmentoflandin developmentarea is notan • ordinaiysale betweenaprudentbuyerandseller.Premium of land in such an allotmentcannot be called the market price 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

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 iiato considerationfor determiningmarket value on the date of NotificationunderSection 4. As per Section24 ofLA Act, the Courtshallnot take into considerationany increaseto the value ofthe landacquiredlikelyto accruefrom the use to which it willbeput when required."

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

¶95The petitionerhas broughtno evidence, leave aside documentaryevidencethat the acquiredland was suitable LA.App.No. ]15/201]&connectedAppealsofVillageBamnoli Page5ofIS •0 for putting up buildings, be they residentialor commercial or industrialas the case may be. There is no building activitystartedon the landin questioneven afterpassingof a decade since area was urbanized. "

¶8On the question of potentialityof the acquired land, ELefoence Courthas taken note ofthe fact that this acquiredland is surroundedon all four sides by Villages-Bharthal,Bijwasan,Pochanpiirand Dhul Siras. Noticingthat acquiredland is in the vicinityof Dwarka, where DDA is developingcolonies and therefore,adoption of the minimum rates for agriculturalland fixed by the GovernmentofDelhiby the Land AcquisitionCollectorwas not justified.Upon consideringthe two' sale instancesof25"^ October,2004 (Ex.R-1)and of 20"^ April, 2004 (Ex.R-2) ofthis veiy 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"108 which was found to be comparable."

¶9In the instant appeals, it was vehementlyurged on behalfof the appellantsthat the effectofNotification,of24''" October,1994 declaring the acquired lands being fit for urbanizationand Notificationof 16^'' October,2000 regardingthe changeoflanduse underthe MasterPlan of Delhi has not been consideredby the ReferenceCourtto appreciatethe truepotentialofthe acquiredland.Reliancewas placedupon decisionof the Apex Court in SpecialLandAcquisitionOfficer& Am vs. MJL RafiqSaheb,(2011)7SCC 714, by learnedcounselfor the appellantsto contend that in view of the aforesaidNotifications,the acquiredland cannotbe treatedas an agriculturalland for determinationofits market value.

¶10Aforesaidcontentionis noticedfor beingoutrightlyrejectedas the • LA,App.No. 115/201]&connectedAppealsOfVillageBaninoli , Page6of15 LA. 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 R'afiq Saheb (supra), is clearly misplaced, as the Reference Court has determined the market value of the acquiredlandwhilerelyinguponasaleexemplarofthis veryvillage.

¶11There is no questionof discardingthe aforesaidNotifications.In fact, inspiteofthe aforesaidNotificationsno developmentactivitywas there on the acquiredlands as no permission.was soughtby the owners ofthe acquiredlands-underDelhiDevelopmentAct and therefore,it can be safely concludedthat the acquiredlands were undevelopedand the same could not be comparedwith developedlands for determiningthe marketvalue of the acquiredland. Thus, relianceplaced by appellant's counselupon UdhoDass vs. StateofHaryana&Ors., 2010 (9) SCALE 41 is of no avail.

¶12Rejection of auction rates of Delhi DevelopmentAuthority, in Sector 20 and 22 of Dwarka, by the Reference Court, is assailed by learnedcounselfor the appellantsby contendingthatthe acquiredland is fully comparable with the aforesaid land and is in proximity and therefore,the marketvalueofthe acquiredlanq:oughtto have been fixed with referenceto the auctionrates ofthe DelhiDevelopmentIAuthority. ReferenceCourthas not only relieduponthe decisionofApex Courtin Lai Chand vs. Union ofIndia andAm., (2009) 15 SCC 769 but has extensivelyquoted relevant passages thereftc^ to hold that the j;ale 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' distinguish the decisionofthe Apex Courtin Lai Chand(supra),whose ratio squarely •App.No. 115/20]]&connectedAppealsofVillageBamnoli applies to the instantcases. Therefore,I find that the ReferenceCourt has rightlyrefusedto apply Delhi DevelopmentAuthorityauctionrates foi determiningthe marketvalueofthe acquiredland.

¶13Whilereiteratingthe well settledprincipleoflaw that comparable sale instances,are the best piece of evidenceto be consideredby the Court for the purposeof determiningthe compensation,Apex Court in its recent decisionin 'RadhaMudaliyar Vs. SpecialTahsildar(Land Acquisition Tamil Nadu Housing Board) (2010) 13 SCC 384 has observed as underl ie. Comparablesalesinstancesare thesafestmethodfor determining^the marketvalue ofthe acquiredland and as laid down in Shaji Kuriakosev. Indian Oil Corpn. Ltd it shouldsatisfy the factors, inter alia (1) the sale must be j genuine transaction; (2) the sale deed must have been executedat the time proximateto the date of issuanceof notificationunderSection4ofthe Act; (3) the landcovered by the sale must be in the vicinityofthe acquiredland; (4) the landcoveredby thesalemust be similarto the acquired landand (5) size oftheplotofthe landcoveredby the'sale be comparableto theacquired land The sales instances shouldpreferablybe closest to the date ofnotificationas then alone it wouldsatisfythe touchstoneoftheprinciples contemplatedunder Section 23 of the Act, as held in KanwflrSinghvs. Union ofIndia."

¶14I-ixationofthe marketvalue ofthe acquiredland on tlie basisof the saleinstances(Ex.PW-1/7to Ex.PW-1/14)ofthe adjoiningvillages, as sought by the appellantsstands rightly rejected by the Reference Court as the sale mstancesofthis very villageare available.When it is so, then there is no need to look for the sale instancesof the adjoining villages.

¶15On tlie aforesaidreasoning,adoptionoftheL&DOratesto fix the marketvalueofthe acquiredlandssoughtby the appellantsis outrightly rejected. Appellants'counsel had relied upon, decision of the Apex -A.App.No. ]15/2011& comiectedAppealsOfVillage PageSoflS ' Court in Kirati 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 large area, not fully developed, is acquired, normally, deduction of about 33% is permissible. Ihe 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 DepartmentofDelhi Governmenton leaseholdbasis at a consideration 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 asserted by 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 ofthe appellants,it was pointedout by learnedsenior counsel for the Respondentsthat aforesaidallotment by Delhi DevelopmentAuthorityto Power Departmentof Government LA.App.No. 115/201]&connectedAppealsofVillageBamnoli jg \ of Delhi was made in November, 2007 and the possession of the afoiesaidland was handedoverto the PowerDepartmentofGovernment ofDelhi in February,2008 and the acquisitionofthe land in questionis of November, 2004 and during the interveningperiod land rates had steadilyincreasedand therefore,aforesaidall6tmentcaimotbe made the basis to determine the market value of the acquired land as the interveninggapis of threeyears.

¶18The factorsto be consideredto determinethe marketvalue of the acquiredlands as reiteratedby the^ApexCourtin GeneralManager,Oil and Natural Gas CorporationLtd vs. RameshbhaiJivanbhaiPatel and Anr, (2008) 14 SCC 745, are as under:- IS. Primarily, the increase in land prices depends on fourfactors:situationofthe land, natureofdevelopmentin surroundingarea, availabilityof landfor developmentin the area, and the demandfor land in the area. In rural areas, unless there is any prospectof developmentin the vicinity, increase in prices would "be slow, steady and gradual, withoutany suddenspurts-orjumps. On the other hand, in urbanor semi-urbanareas, 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 value in urban/semi-urbanareas is about 10% to 15%per annum, the correspondingincreasesin ruralareaswouldat , LA.App.No. IJ5/2011&connectedAppealsofVillageBamnoli Page 10 of IS ^1 J best be only around half of it, that is about 5% to 7.5%per annum. This rule ofthumb 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 he 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 nearbyAands 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/ acquisitionsprecede the subjectacquisitionby only a few years, that is uptofour tofiveyedrs. Beyondthat it may be unsafe, even if it relatesto a neighbouringland. What may be a reliablestandardif the gap is only a few 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" ofannual increasemay \tself 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 tlie ratio of the decisionofthe 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 wouldnot be a usefblguideto determinethe marketvalueofthe land in question, as the said allotmentwas made after a period of three years from the date ofacquisitionofthe land in question.It is so said beca.use the sale exemplarofthe relevantperiodofthisveryvillagein questionis LA.App.No. II5/2011&connectedAppealsofVillageBamnoli Pagel| ofIS available. Therefore, the aforesaid instance of allotment of land to the PowerDepartmentof Governmentof Delhi has been rightlyrejectedby the Reference Court. '

¶20Now what is required to be considered is whether the sale instance . (Ex.R-1)reliedupon bytheReferenceCourtis a comparableinstanceor not. Undisputedly,sale instance(Ex.R-1)is ofthis very villageand is of October, 2004 whereas the land in question was acquired vide Notification of November, 2004. Evidently, aforesaid sale instance (Ex.R-1)is not only relevantbutiscomparableas it has not been shown by the appellantsas to what are the distinguishingfeatureswhich v/ould make itinapplicableto determinethe marketvalueofthe acquiredlands. Findingofthe ReferenceCourtthat when the sale instance(Ex.R-1)was exhibitedno objectionwas raisedby the claimantsand £is 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 aforesaidfindingof the ReferenceCourt, it was submittedby learnedcounselfor the appellantsthat opportunityto lead rebuttalevidenceto show that sale instance(Ex.R-1)is not reliable or bona fide,,an applicationto lead rebuttal evidence was filed before the 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).~

¶22First of all, appellantsoughtto have objectedto the exhibitionof aforesaidsale instance(Ex.R-1).Havingnot done so, appellantshave to face the legal consequences. Secondly, even if apphcation of the I • LA.App.No. ]15/2011& connectedAppealsofVillageBamnoli Page 12 of15 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 instapce(Ejc.R-1) isnot genuine/reliableor comparable.

¶23In the light of the evidence on record, I am of the considered opinionthatthe ReferenceCourthas rightlyrelieduponthe sale instance (Ex.R-1),to detemiinethe marketvalueofthe acquiredlands.Findingno merit in the instantappeals of claimantsand cross-objectionby one of them, the same are dismissedwhile leavingthe partiesto beartheirown costs. j

¶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 ReferenceCourt is concerned,I find that I 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. ' . Endorsingthe pricedifferenfiationbetween'A' categoryland and 'B' category land, my esteemed brother Pradeep Nandrajog, J., in a recentdecisionin LA.App.No.266/2008,titledas JaiSingh &Ors. vsi Union ofIndia&Ors., renderedon'23'"^August2011, whilerelyingon the decision of the DivisionBench of this court in Gajraj^Singh vs. UnionofIndia, 2006 (VI) AD Delhi 13, has heldas under:- LA.App,No. 115/2011&connectedAppealsofVillageBamnoli "56. In GajrajSingh'scase (supra), theprice differential worked out was 125,000/- per acre. I have noted hereinabove that the acquisitionin Gajraj Singh's case pertainedto the date 15.11.1996.In GajrajSingh'scase the pricefor Categoiy 'A ' landdeterminedwas 76,121/-per acre andfor Category 'B' land the price determinedM^as X9,51,121/-per acre and the price differentialcomes to about 2.5% with reference to the price of Category 'A' land.

57.^ I thus hold that Gajraj Singh's case should be my guiding star for price differentialin the instant cases as well and thus I holdthat whereverCategory 'A Category B and Category 'C have to be differentiatedonprice, the differential should be 2.5%."

¶26Consequentially,the findingofthe ReferenceCourtregardingthe j .A' categoiyand 'B' categoryland beingsimilarlysituatedhavingsame potentialityand becausethey are acquiredfor the same publicpuipose, cannotbe sustainedin the lightof the aforesaidobservations.However, the claim of the Union of India, to seek adoption of the minimum indicative-priceof agriculturalland in Delhi while forgettingthat the Appellant-UOI itselfhas reliedupon the sale instance(Ex.R-1),merits rejection.

¶27In viewofthe,afore-goingnarration,Ifindthatno substancein the appeals filed by claimantsas well as in cross objectionof one of the claimantsand the same are dismissed. So far as the appeeils filed by UnionofIndiaare 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/-acre.

¶28Beforepartingthis order,Iwould like to bring on recordthat the brevity of this order is occasioned'by the fact that the impugned judgmentis well consideredon facts and the law. Therefore,I have LA.App.No. 115/20]1&connectedAppealsofVillageBamnoli j,. g purposefullynot adverted to the entire evidence on record and tlie relevant evidence, i.e. of the sale exemplars has been tal<en into consideration by me in this order.

¶29The above captionedappealsand cross-objectionare disposedof with directionto the Registryto remittlie compensationamount,ifany, depositedby eitherside with the RegistrarGeneralofthis Court,to the concerned Reference Court. February 01, 2012 pkb/rs JUDGE •A.App.No. 1,5/2011&connectedAppealsofVillageBamnoli Page IS of 15

Nl % + % IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI LA.APP. 133/2011 VED PRAKASH & ORS Through: versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR Through: 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.Rout and 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 Sharraa, 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