Bhagwan Singh v. Union of India & Anr

ORDER 0L02.2012 For orderssee LA.App.No.115/2011,titledas Jai Prakash vj'. Union ofIndia & Anr. FEBRU ARY 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. % f 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: LA.APP. 16/2011 LA. APP. 19/2011 LA.APP. 22/2011 LA.APP. 90/2011 r.A.APP. 93/2011 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 appellantin R-112 and respondentin 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 andforrespondentonR-79) versus UNION Ot INDIA& ANR. Respondents Through: Mr.SanjayPoddar, SeniorAdvocatewith 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, 113-1.23 Mr.ArunBirbal,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) AND LA.APP. 17/2011 LA.APP. 20/2011 LA.APP. 23/2011 LA.APP. 91/2011 LA.APP. 94/2011 I.A.App.No. 115/2011 & connectedAppealsofVillage Bamnoli LA. APP. 18/2011 LA.APP. 21/2011 LA.APP. 24/2011 LA.APP. 92/2011 LA.APP. 95/2011 s-vssn ^ j ' k r ' ' ' ^ , i i f e-I f fr" I l/V I-I ti f: i I I: f I' i i 11"' 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. 133/2011 LA.APP. 166/2011 LA.APP. 168/2011 LA.APP. 170/2011 LA.APP. 172/2011 LA.APP. 173/2011 LA.APP. 175/2011 LA.APP. 176/2011 LA.APP. 179/2011 LA.APP. 183/2011 LA.APP. 187/2011 LA.APP. 189/2011 LA.APP. 193/2011 LA.APP. 194/2011 LA.APP. 205/2011 LA.APP. 206/2011 LA.APP. 208/2011 LA.APP. 209/2011 LA.APP; 211/2011 LA.APP. 260/2011 LA.APP. 264/2011 LA.APP. 266/2011 LA.APP. 276/2011 LA.APP. 286/2011 LA.APP. 295/2011 LA.APP. 303/2011 LA.APP.305/2011 LA.APP. 306/2011 LA.APP. 308/2011 LA.APP. 309/2011 LA.APP. 311/2011 LA.APP. 312/2011 LA.APP. 314/2011 LA.APP. 315/2011 LA.APP.317/2011 LA.APP. 318/2011 LA.APP. 320/2011 LA.APP. 321/2011 LA.APP. 352/2011 • LA.APP. 354/2011 LA.APP. 356/2011 LA.APP. 357/2011 LA.APP. 359/2011 LA.APP. 363/2011 LA.APP. 490/2011 LA.APP. 491/2011 LA.APP. 493/2011 LA.APP. 494/2011 LA.APP. 497/2011 LA.APP. 498/2011 LA.APP. 501/2011 LA.APP. 502/2011 LA.APP. 504/2011 LA.APP. 505/2011 LA.APP.507/2011 LA.APP.512/2011 LA.APP. 524/2011 LA.APP.574/2011 LAlAPPr575720rrf LA.APP. 577/2011 LA.APP. 590/2011 LA.APP. 645/2011 LA.APP. 638/2011 LA.App.278/2011 LA.App.279/2011 LA.App.281/2011 LA.App.282/2011 LA.App.284/2011 LA.App.285/2011 LA.App.288/2011 LA.APP. 184/2011& C.M.No. 10953/2011 (Cross-objection) (Relatingto NotificationNo.9(50)/2004/L&B/LA/13211of 04.11.2004 issuedunderSection4ofthe LandAcquisitionAct, 1894& AwardNo. 1/2007-2008of06.08.2008,VillageBamnoli,NewDelhi) A.App.No. 115/2011& connectedAppealsofVillageBamnoli % CORAM: HON'BLEMR. JUSTICESUNILGAUR ORDER

01.02.2012 I. Abovecaptionedappealsand cross-objectionsrelateto acquisition of about 2100 bighas of land in Village Bamnoli, Delhi notified for PlannedDevelopmentofDelhi videNotificationof4® November,2004 underthe LandAcquisitionAct, 1894 and since the impugnedorder of the ReferenceCourtmthese appealsuniformlygrants compensationat the rate of ?17,45,000per acre with statutorybenefits,therefore,with the consentof learned counsel for the parties,who were presentat the final hearing, these matters were heard together and are being adjudicatedupon by this commonorder.

¶2LandAcquisitionCollectorwhilerelyinguponthe indicativeprice fixed by GovernmentofNCT ofDelhi for agriculturalland in Delhi for the periodmquestion,had determinedthe marketvalue ofthe acquired land mquestionat the aforesaidrate of?15,70,000/-acreofleveled land in Block A, whereas for the acquired land excavatedbeyond one meter, i.e.. BlockBland, compensationwas determinedat the rate of ^14,13,000/-per acre.

¶3Not satisfied with the aforesaid Award of Land Acquisition ^ Collector,before the ReferenceCourt, appellants/claimantshad relied upon Notification of 24'' October, 1994 issued by the Municipal. Corporationof Delhi declaring the land in 20 villages includingthe instant village to be urbanized. Reliance was also placed upon Notificationof 16"- October,2000 declaringchange of land use ofthe acquiredland in questionand thereupon,Delhi DevelopmentAuthority had preparedZonalDevelopmentPlan for DwarkaSub Cityin Dwarlca, l^A,App. ,15/2011&connecedAppealsofVillageBamnoli tf New Delhi.

¶4While relying upon seven sale instances(Ex.PW-1/7to 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 evaluationof the evidence on record concludedthat there was no evidenceto the effect that location,potentialand utility of the land in the VillagesofBharthal,Pochanpurand Bamnoliis similarand had chosen not to rely upon the aforesaid sale instances as the Sale instanceofthis very villagewas available.

¶5In 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. 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 implicitreliance upon 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 U agricultural land in Delhi.

¶6To fortify the aforesaidfinding, ReferenceCourt has extensively quotedthe passagesfrom the Apex Courtdecisionin Lai Chand(supra) and thereafter,had proceededto discardheavilyreliedupon instanceof allotment of 14.5 acres of the acquired land by Delhi Development Authorityto the PowerDepartmentofGovernmentofNCT ofDelhi for LA.App.No. 115/2011&connectedAppealsofVillageBamnoli 4 15 )3 constructionof 715 Mega Watt Gas Based Power Plant/Project,while holding as under:-

¶77The allotmentof1.5 hectareoflandforapremiumof "^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 ofSection12 of the Delhi Development Act, 1957 determination of premiumfor allotmentofland in developmentarea is notan ordinarysale betweena prudentbuyerandseller.Premium of land in such an allotmentcannot be called the market price of land which a prospectivebuyer of'similarland 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 into 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 will beput when required."

¶7On the aspectofthe acquiredland beingdeclaredurbanizedand of being in the developmentzone, the pertinentfindings returned by the Reference Court are as under:-

¶94Land ofpetitioneris agriculturallandalthoughit is in urbanized area and in development zone. 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 buildingsiteeven in nearfuture.

¶95The petitionerhas broughtno, evidence, leave aside documentaryevidencethat the acquiredland was suitable LA.App.No. 115/201]&connectedAppealsofVillageBamnoli Page.s of15 forputtingup buildings,be they residentialor commercial or industrialas the case may be. There is no building activitystartedon the landin questioneven afterpassingof a decadesince area was urbanized."

¶8On the question of potentialityof the acquired land, Reference Courthas takennote ofthe fact thatthis acquiredland is surroundedon all four sides by Villages-Bharthal,Bijwasan,Pochanpurand Dhul Siras. Noticingthat acquiredland is in the vicinityof Dwarka, v^here DDA is developingcolonies and therefore,adoption of the minimum ratesfor agriculturalland fixedby the GovernmeMofDelhi by the Land AcquisitionCollectorwas not justified.Upon consideringthe two sale instancesof25'" October,2004 (Ex.R-1)and of20'" April,2004 (Ex.R-2) ofthis very village,ReferenceCourt had discardedthe sale instance (F,x.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-l) depicting sale considerationof ?17,45,108 which was found to be comparable.' 9-In the instantappeals,it was vehementlyurged on behalfof the appellantsthat the effectofNotificationof24"'October,1994 declaring the acqun-ed lands being fit for urbanizationand Notificationof 16"" October,2000regardingthe changeoflanduse underthe MasterPlanof Delhi has not been consideredby the ReferenceCourtto appreciatethe ^ truepotentialofthe acquiredland;Reliancewasplacedupondecisionof the Apex Court mSpecialLandAcquisitionOfficer&Am vs. M.K. RaflqSakeb.(2011)7SCC 714, by learnedcounselfor the appellantsto contend that in view of the aforesaid Notifications,the acquiredland cannot be treatedas an agriculturalland for determinationofits market value. .

¶10Aforesaidcontentionis noticedfor beingoutrightlyrejectedas the LA.App.No, c"""ea=dAppealsofVillageBamnoli acquiredlands may not to be termed as agriculturalland but they were certamlyundeveloped.Government'sminimumrates for the agricultural land applicableto Delhi have been rightly discardedby the Reference Court. So, reliance placed upon M.K. Rafiq Saheb (supra), is clearly misplaced,as the ReferenceCourt has determinedthe market value of the acquiredlandwhilerelyinguponasaleexemplarofthisveryvillage.

¶11There is no questionofdiscardingthe aforesaidNotifications.In fact, inspiteof the aforesaidNotificationsno developmentactivitywas there on the acquiredlands as no permissionwas soughtby the owners ofthe acquiredlandsunderDelhiDevelopmentAct and therefore,it can be safely concludedthat the acquiredlands were undevelopedand the j 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 Dwarlca, by the ReferenceCourt, is assailed by learnedcounselfor the appellantsby contendingthatthe acquiredlandis folly comparable with the aforesaid land and is in proximity and therefore,the marketvalueofthe acquiredlandoughtto have been fixed with referenceto the auctionrates ofthe Delhi DevelopmentAuthority. 4^ ReferenceCourthas not only relieduponthe decisionofApex Courtin Lai Chand vs. Union ofIndia andAm., (2009) 15 SCC 769 but has extensivelyquoted relevant passages therefrom to hold that the sale considerationof the developedlands camiotbe appliedto the acquired lands which are undisputedlyundeveloped.At the hearing in these appeals, learned counsel for the appellant could not distinguishthe decisionofthe Apex Court in Lai Chand(supra),whose ratiosquarely ^A.App.No. 115/2011&connectedAppealsofVillageBamnoli ^ applies to the instantcases. Therefore.Ifind that the ReferenceCourt has nghtlyrefusedto apptyDelhiDeve,opn,entAuthorityauctionrates or detemiiningthemarketvalueofthe acquiredland.

¶13Whilereiteratingthe well settledprincipleoflawthatcomparable saeinstances,are the best piece of evidenceto be consideredby the Court for the purposeofdeterminingthe compensation.Apex Court in .ts recent decisionin Ka.HaM«4aHyar Vs. SpecialTaHsUaar(LaM Ac"n Tamil Nadu Housing Board) (2010) 13 SCC 384 has observed as under:- -pj/S-Si: fri-,. ^ shouldsansfy thefactors, inter alia (!) the sTm^the notificationu^X^nZ}]::tfZfl f bv the salp mu^t • .1 . ' covered contemplatedunder Section 2} of the Aa a, Zu KanwarSinghvs. UnionofIndia." '

¶14Fixationofthe marketvalueofthe acquiredland on the basis of .hesaleinstances(Ex.PW-1/7to Ex.PW-I/I4)ofthe adjoiningvillages <1. as sought by the appellantsstands rightly rejected by the Reference Courtas the sale instancesofthis vetyvillageare available.When it is Ullage's

¶15On the aforesaidreasoning,adoptionofthe L&DOratesto fix the marketvalueofthe acquiredlandssoughtby the appellantsis outrightly •ejected. Appellants'counsel had relied upon decisionof the Apex l-A.App.No. 115/2011&connectedAppealsofVillageBamnoii lb Court in Kiran Tandon vs'. AllahabadDevelopmentAuthority,(2004) 10 see 745 and in ValliyammalandAnr vs. SpecialTehsildar(Land Acquisition)and Am., AIR 2011 SC 2937 to assert that deductionof 40% towardsdevelopmentchargeswas improperand where large area, not fully developed,is acquired,normally, deductionof about 33% is permissible. 1he 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 consideration of t297.42 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 aforesaidstandofthe appellants,it was pointedout by learnedsenior counsel for the Respondentsthat aforesaidallotment by Delhi DevelopmentAuthorityto Power Departmentof Government I.A.App.No. 115/20]1&connectedAppealsofVillageBamnoli Page9of15 IP ) of Delhi was made in November, 2007 and the possession of the aforesaidland 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,aforesaidallotmentcannotbe made the basis to determine the market value of the acquired land as the interveninggap is of threeyears.

¶18The factors to be consideredto determinethe marketvalue ofthe acquiredlands as reiteratedby the Apex Courtin GeneralManager,Oil andNaturalGas CorporationLtd vs. RameshbhaiJivanbhaiPateland Anr, (2008) 14 SCC 745, are as underl ie. Primarily, the increase in land prices depends on fourfactors:situationofthe land, natureofdevelopmentin surroundingarea, availabilityoflandfor 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 suddenspurtsorjumps. On the other hand, in urbanor semi-urbanareas, wherethe development ISfaster, wherethe demandfor landis highandwherethere is constructionactivityall around, the escalationin market price is at a much higherrate, as comparedto ruralareas. 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. c

¶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 landsin the ruralareas. Therefore,ifthe increasein market value in urban/semi-urbanareas is about 10% to 15%per annum, the correspondingincreasesin ruralareaswouldat LA.App.No. 115/2011&connectedAppealsofVillageBamnoli Page best be onlyaroundhalfofit, that is about5% to 7.5%per annum. This rule ofthumb refersto the generaltrendin the nineties, to be adoptedin the absenceofclearand specific evidence relating to increase in prices. Where there are specialreasonsfor applyinga higher rate ofincrease, or any specific evidence relating to the actual increase in prices, then the increaseto be appliedwoulddependupon the same.

¶15Normally, recourse is taken to the mode of determining the market value by providing appropriate escalationover theprovedmarketvalueofnearbylands in previous years (as evidenced by sale transactions or acquisitions), where there is no evidence of any contemporaneous sale transactions or acquisitions of comparablelands in the neighbourhoodThe saidmethodis reasonably safe where the relied-on sale transactions/ acquisitionsprecede the subjectacquisitionby only afew years, that is uptofour tofiveyears. Beyondthat it may be unsafe, even ifit relatesto aneighbouringland. What may be a reliablestandardifthe gap is only afew years, may become unsafe and unreliablestandardwhere the gap is larger.For example,for determiningthe marketvalueofa 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 itself undergo drastic change apart from the likelihood of occurrenceofvaryingperiods ofstagnationin prices or sudden spurts in prices affecting the very standard of increase. ^

¶19Being mindfulof the ratio of the decisionof the Apex Court in ONGC (supra), I find that the instance of institutional allotment (EX.PW13/1)of the year 2007 heavily relied upon by the appellants wouldnot be ausefulguideto determinethe marketvalueofthe landin question,as the said allotmentwas made after aperiod of three years from the date ofacquisitionofthe land in question.It is so said because the saleexemplarofthe relevantperiodofthisveryvillagein questionis LA.App.No. 115/2011&connectedAppealsofVillageBamnoli Page ,5 f1 <L. 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) relied upon by the Reference Court is a comparable instance or not. Undisputedly,sale instance(Ex.R-1)is of this 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 relevant but is comparableas it has not been shown by the appellants as to what are the distinguishingfeatures which would make it inapplicableto determinethe marketvalue of the acquiredlands. Findingof the ReferenceCourtthat when the sale instance(Ex.R-1)was 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 learned counsel for the appellantsthat opportunityto lead rebuttalevidenceto show that sale instance(Ex.R-1)is not reliable or bona fide, an application to lead rebuttal evidence was filed before the ReferenceCourt which was illegallyrejectedvide order of 25^*^ August, 2010 and therefore, this matter needs to be remanded back to the Reference Court to enable the appellants to 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 application of the ^A.App.No. 115/2011& connectedAppealsofVillageBamnoii Page 12 of15 rpP appellantsfor leadingrebuttalevidencewas rejectedby the Reference Court,nothinghad stoppedthem from movingan applicationfor leading additionalevidencein the appeal to lead evidencein orderto demolish the sale instance (Ex.R-1), Not only this, even during the course of ing, nothingwas urgedto showas to how thesaleinstance(Ex.R-1) is not genuine/reliableor comparable.

¶23In the light of the evidence on record,Iam of the considered opinionthattheReferenceCourthasrightlyreliedupon the saleinstance a^.x.R-1)to determinethe marketvalueoftheacquiredlands.Findingno ment in the instantappealsofclaimantsand cross-objectionby one of them, the sameare dismissedwhileleavingthe partiesto beartheirown costs. So far as appeals of the Respondentsare concerned.Ifind no SU stancemthem, becausethe determinationofthe marketvalueofthe acquired,land by the ReferenceCourthas been done whilerelyingupon instance (Ex.R-1) produced by the Respondentsthemselves Residingdoingawayofthe classificationofthe acquiredland into 'A' block and 'B' Block by the ReferenceCourt is concerned,Ifind that this classificationhasareasonablebasis. That is to say, land with top soil andthe landwithouttop soilcannotbe putatparas themarketvalue oftteland withouttop soil is boundto be lesserthanthe marketvalueof the land with top soil. .i,

¶25Endorsingthepricedifferentiationbetween'A-categotylandand Bcategory land, my esteemed brother Pradeep Nandrajog,J i" a recentdecisionin LA.App.No.266/2008.titledas JaiSingh&Ors vs VmonofMia&Ors., renderedon 23-August2011,whilerelyingon edecisionof the Division Bench of this court in Ga}raiSingk rs. Vmonoflndiu.2006(VI)AD Delhi 13,hasheldas under:- I.A.App,N"."5/20n&co""eo,edAppea,sofViI,ageBa™"",i ' ^ "36. In GajrajSingh'scase (supra), the price differential worked out was t25,000/- per acre. I have noted hereinabove that the acquisition in Gajraj Singh's case pertainedto the date 15.11.1996.In GajrajSingh'scase the pricefor Category 'A ' landdeterminedwas ^9,76,121/-per acre andfor 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%."

¶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 indicative-priceof agriculturalland in Delhi while forgettingthat the Appellant-UOI itselfhas reliedupon the sale instance(Ex.R-1),merits rejection.

¶27In viewofthe,afore-goingnarration,Ifind thatno substancein the appeals filed by claimantsas well as in cross objectionof one of the claimantsand the same are dismissed.So far as the appeals 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?17,45,000per to ?17,01.375/-peracre.

¶28Beforepartingthis order,Iwould like to bring on recordthat the brevity of this order is occasioned by the fact that the impugned .ludgmem is well consideredon facts and the law. Therefore,I have LA.App.No. 115/2011&connectedAppealsofVillageBamnoli ,4 7-puT^osefoliyno. adverted to the entire evidence on reeord and tl,e re evant ev.dence, ,,e. of tlie sale exemplars has been taken into considerationby me in this order.

¶29The above captionedappealsand cross-objectionare disposedof w, d.rect,onto the Registryto remitthe compensationamount,ifany epositedby eitherside with the RegistrarGeneralofthis Court, to the concernedReference Court. February01, 2012 JUDGE ^ pkb/rs '--PPN"."5,20n^o"""«edAppea."fVi"a,.Ba."". Page 15 of 15 ' ^3

\0> % + % IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI LA.APP. 533/2011 BHAGWAN SINGH 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 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