Partly allowed

Union of India v. Charan Singh & Anr.

Delhi HC1 Feb 2012LA.APP./173/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order dismissed claims for enhanced compensation in land acquisition appeals. The Court upheld the use of a contemporaneous village sale instance over DDA rates and rejected a later institutional allotment due to time gaps. However, it reduced compensation for Class B bare land by 2.5% based on judicial precedent.

What did the court decide?

Compensation for Class B bare land reduced from Rs. 17,45,000 per acre to Rs. 17,01,375 per acre.

Union of India Vs Charan Singh & Anr. — Land Acquisition | Delhi HC (2012)

¶1

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:AM UL YA

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI Al' NEW DELHI

¶4

¶5

Reserved on: Januar' 12, 2011 Pronounced on: February 01, 2012

¶6

LA.APP. 115/2011 (VILLAGE BAMNOLI) •

¶7

JAIPRAKASH Appellant Through: 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,,3845,51-53)

¶8

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)

¶9

versus

¶10

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.MohinderSingh Charak,Advocate(R-63 and 112)

¶11

AND

¶12

LA. APP. 16/2011 LA. APP. 17/2011 LA.APP. 18/2011 LA. APP. 19/2011 LA.APP. 20/2011 LA.APP. 21/2011 LA.APP. 22/2011 LA.APP. 23/2011 LA.APP. 24/2011 LA.APP. 90/2011 LA.APP. 91/2011 LA.APP. 92/2011 LA.APP. 93/2011 LA.APP. 94/2011 LA.APP. 95/2011

¶13

-.A.App. No. 115/2011 & connectedAppeals ofVillageBamnoli

¶14

Page 1 of 15

¶15

^v|jr fs

¶16

, f' f i ''Ji ^ r t' \ ^ h ^ i ^ J 'iifllli jiiiil*!

¶17

:LA.APP. 115/2011	LA.APP. 133/2011	LA.APP. 166/2011
LA.APP. 167/2011	LA.APP. 168/2011	LA.APP. 170/2011
LA.APP. 171/2011	LA.APP. 172/2011	LA.APP. 173/2011
LA.APP. 174/2011	LA.APP. 175/2011	LA.APP. 176/2011
LA.APP. 178/2011	LA.APP. 179/2011	LA.APP. 183/2011
LA.APP. 186/2011	LA.APP. 187/2011	LA.APP. 189/2011
LA.APP. 192/2011	LA.APP. 193/2011	LA.APP, 194/2011
LA.APP. 204/2011	LA.APP. 205/2011	LA.APP. 206/2011
LA.APP. 207/2011	LA.APP. 208/2011	LA.APP. 209/2011
LA.APP. 210/2011	LA.APP. 211/2011	LA.APP. 260/2011
la:app. 263/2011	LA.APP. 264/2011	LA.APP. 266/2011
LA.APP. 275/2011	LA.APP. 276/2011	LA.APP. 286/2011
LA.APP. 293/2011	LA.APP. 295/2011	• LA.APP. 303/2011
LA.APP. 304/2011	LA.APP. 305/2011	LA.APP.30^/2011
LA.APP. 307/2011	LA.APP. 308/2011	LA.APP. 309/2011
LA.APP. 310/201.1	LA.APP. 311/2011	LA.APP. 312/2011
LA.APP. 313/2011	LA.APP. 314/2011	LA.APP. 315/2011
LA.APP. 316/2011	LA.APP. 317/2011	, LA.APP. 318/2011
LA.APP. 319/2011	LA.APP. 320/2011	LA.APP. 321/2011
LA.APP. 325/2011	LA.APP. 352/2011	LA.APP. 354/2011
LA.APP. 355/2011	LA.APP. 356/2011	LA.APP. 357/2011
LA.APP. 358/2011	LA.APP. 359/2011	LA.APP. 363/2011
LA.APP. 364/2011	LA.APP. 490/2011	LA.APP. 491/2011
LA.^PP. 492/2011	LA.APP. 493/2011	LA.APP. 494/2011
LA.APP. 495/2011	LA.APP. 497/2011	LA.APP. 498/2011 '
LA.APP. 499/2011	LA.APP. 501/2011	LA.APP. 502/2011
LA.APP. 503/2011	LA.APP. 504/2011	LA.APP. 505/2011
LA.APP. 506/2011	LA.APP. 507/2011	LA.APP. 512/2011
LA.APP. 513/2011,	LA.APP. 524/2011	LA.APP. 533/2011
LA.APP. 573/2011	LA.APP. 574/2011	LAAPP575/2011
LA.APP. 576/2011	LA.APP. 577/2011	.. LA.APP. 590/2011
LA.APP. 592/2011	LA.APP. 645/2011	LAAPP638/2011
LA.App. 196/2011	LA.App. 278/2011	.. LA.App. 279/2011
LA.App. 280/2011	LA.App. 281/2011	LAA282/2011
LA.App. 283/2011	LA.App, 284/2011	.pp. : LAApp285/2011
LA.App. 287/2011	LA.App. 288/2011	.. LA.APP. 184/2011 & C.M.No. 10953/2011 (Cross-objection)

¶18

(Relatingto NotificationNo.9(50)/2004/L&B/LA/13211of 04 11 2004

¶19

^A.App. No. II5/20J1&connectedAppealsof VillageBamnoli

¶20

Page 2 of 15

¶21

¶22

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR

•-J

O RD E 01.02.2012

Above captionedappealsand cross-objectionsrelate to acquisition of about 2100 bighas of land in Village Bamnoli, Delhi notified for PlannedDevelopmentof Delhi vide Notificationof 4^*^ November,2004 under,the Land AcquisitionAct, 1894 and since the impugned order of the ReferenceCourt in these appeals uniformlygrants compensationat the rate of ^17,45,000per acre with statutorybenefits, therefore,,with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, who were present at the final hearing, these matters were heard together and are being adjudicatedupon by this common order. 2. Land AcquisitionCollectorwhile relyingupon the indicativeprice fixed by Governmentof NCT of Delhi for agriculturalland in Delhi for the period in question,had determinedthe market value ofthe acquired land in questionat the aforesaidrate of?15,70,000/-per acre ofleveled land in Block A, whereas for the acquired land 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 • Corporation of Delhi declaring the land in 20 villages including the instant village to be urbanized. Reliance was also placed upon Notificationof le'"^ October, 2000 declaring change of land use of the acquired land in question and thereupon,Delhi DevelopmentAuthority had preparedZonal DevelopmentPlan for Dwarka Sub City in Dwarka,

¶27

LA.App.No. .115/2011&connectedAppealsof VillageBamnoli Page3of 15

¶28

New Delhi.

¶29

While relying upon seven sale instances (Ex.PW-1/7 to Ex.PW1/13) ofthe year 1999, relatingto agriculturalland in VillagePochanpur purchased by a religious society - Radha Swami Satsang, Beas, and certified copy of Sale Deed of 27"' September,2004 (Ex.PW-1/14)of Village Bharthal, enhancementin compensationwas sought. Reference Court upon evaluation of the evidence on record concluded that there was no evidence to the effect that location, potential and utility of the land in the Villages of Bharthal,Pochanpurand Bamnoli is similarand had chosen not to rely upon the aforesaid sale instances as the .Sale instanceof this very villagewas available.

¶30

.5. In the absence of the evidence of the Vendor/Vendee of the •aforesaid sale instances. Reference,Court had discarded the aforesaid sale instancesreliedupon by the appellants/claimants,while advertingto paragraphno: 29 ofthe Apex Court decisionin Lai Chandvs. Union of India and Ann, (2009) 15 SCC 769.^ Before dealing with the sale instances(Ex.R-Iand Ex.R-II)ofVillageBamnoli,ReferenceCourt had refused to apply Delhi Development Authority auction rate for the commercialplots or the schedule of market rates for Vasa(it Vihar by placing implicit reliance 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 agriculturalland in Delhi. 6. To fortify the aforesaidfinding, ReferenceCourt has extensively quotedthe passagesfrom the Apex Court decisionin Lai Chand(supra) and thereafter.I,ad proceededto discardheavilyrelied upon instanceof allotment of 14,5 acres of the acquired land by Delhi Development Authorityto the PowerDepartmentof Governmentof NCT ofDelhi for

¶31

LA.App.No.115/201]&connectedAppealsofVillageBamnoli

¶32

Page4oflS

¶33

\y^

¶34

constructionof 715 Mega Watt Gas Based Power Plant/Project,while holding as under:: .

¶35

"77. The 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 question withoutpermissionofDDA in view of Section 12 of the Delhi Development Act, 1957 determination of premiumfor allotmentofland in developmentarea is notan • ordinaiysale betweena prudentbuyerandseller. Premium of land in such an allotmentcannot be called the market price of land which a prospective buyer of similar land sittingin his armchairwouldbe willingto pay.

¶36

Moreover, there is a time gap ofthreeyears between date of Notification under Section 4 of LA Act which is 04.11.2004 and date of allotment which is 25.11 2007. Marketprice of land allottedafter 3 years ofNotification under Section 4 of LA Act cannot be taken iiato considerationfor determiningmarket value on the date of Notificationunder Section 4. As per Section 24 ofLA Act, the Court shall not take into considerationany increaseto the value ofthe landacquiredlikely to accruefrom the use to which it will beput when required."

¶37

On the aspectofthe acquiredland being declaredurbanizedand of being in the developmentzone, the pertinent findings returned by the Reference Court are as uiider:-

¶38

"94. Land ofpetitioneris agriculturalland although it is in urbanized area and in development zone. The land continued to be agricultural land 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 question having potentialfor buildingsite even in nearfuture.

¶39

The petitionerhas brought no evidence, leave aside documentaryevidence that the acquiredland was suitable

¶40

LA.App.No. ]15/201] &connectedAppealsofVillageBamnoli Page5of IS

¶41

for putting up buildings, be they residentialor commercial or industrial as the case may be. There is no building activitystartedon the land in questioneven afterpassingof a decade since area was urbanized. "

¶42

•0

¶43

On the question of potentialityof the acquired land, ELefoence Court has taken note of the fact that this acquiredland is surroundedon all four sides by Villages - Bharthal, Bijwasan, Pochanpiir and Dhul Siras. Noticing that acquired land is in the vicinity of Dwarka, where DDA is developing colonies and therefore, adoption of the minimum rates for agriculturalland fixed by the Governmentof Delhi by the Land AcquisitionCollectorwas not justified.Upon consideringthe two' sale instancesof 25"^ October, 2004 (Ex.R-1)and of 20"^ April, 2004 (Ex.R2) of this 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 consideration of ?17,45„108 which was found to be comparable."

¶44

In the instant appeals, it was vehementlyurged on behalfof the appellantsthat the effectof Notification,of 24''" October, 1994 declaring the acquired lands being fit for urbanizationand Notificationof 16^'' October,2000 regardingthe changeofland use under the MasterPlan of Delhi has not been consideredby the ReferenceCourt to appreciatethe true potentialofthe acquiredland. Reliancewas placedupon decisionof the Apex Court in SpecialLand AcquisitionOfficer& Am vs. MJL RafiqSaheb, (2011)7SCC 714, by learnedcounselfor the appellantsto contend that in view of the aforesaidNotifications,the acquired land cannot be treated as an agriculturalland for determinationof its market value. 10. Aforesaidcontentionis noticedfor being outrightlyrejectedas the

¶45

• LA,App.No. 115/201]&connectedAppealsOfVillageBaninoli , Page6of 15

¶46

acquired lands may not to be termed as agriculturalland but they were certainlyundeveloped.Government'sminimumrates for the agricultural land applicableto Delhi have been rightly discarded by 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 acquiredland while relyingupon a sale exemplarofthis very village. 11. There is no question of discardingthe aforesaidNotifications.In fact, inspite of the aforesaidNotificationsno developmentactivity was there on the acquiredlands as no permission.was sought by the owners ofthe acquiredlands-underDelhi DevelopmentAct and therefore,it can be safely concludedthat the acquired lands were undevelopedand the same could not be comparedwith developedlands for determiningthe market value of the acquiredland. Thus, relianceplaced by appellant's counselupon Udho Dass vs. StateofHaryana&Ors., 2010 (9) SCALE 41 is of no avail.

¶47

Rejection of auction rates of Delhi DevelopmentAuthority, in Sector 20 and 22 of Dwarka, by the Reference Court, is assailed by learnedcounselfor the appellantsby contendingthat the acquiredland is fully comparable with the aforesaid land and is in proximity and therefore,the marketvalue ofthe acquiredlanq:oughtto have been fixed with referenceto the auctionrates of the Delhi DevelopmentIAuthority. ReferenceCourt has not only relied upon the decisionof Apex Court in Lai Chand vs. Union ofIndia and Am., (2009) 15 SCC 769 but has extensively quoted relevant passages thereftc^ to hold that the j;ale considerationof the developedlands cannot be applied to the acquired lands which are undisputedly undeveloped. At the hearing in these appeals, learned counsel for the appellant could not' distinguish the decisionof the Apex Court in Lai Chand(supra), whose ratio squarely LA. •App. No. 115/20]]&connectedAppealsofVillageBamnoli

¶48

Page 7 of 15

¶49

¶50

applies to the instant cases. Therefore,I find that the Reference Court has rightlyrefused to apply Delhi DevelopmentAuthorityauction rates foi determiningthe marketvalueofthe acquiredland. 13. While reiteratingthe well settledprincipleof law that comparable sale instances, are the best piece of evidence to be consideredby the Court for the purpose of determiningthe compensation,Apex Court in its recent decision in 'Radha Mudaliyar Vs. Special Tahsildar(Land Acquisition Tamil Nadu Housing Board) (2010) 13 SCC 384 has observed as underl

¶51

ie. Comparablesales instancesare the safestmethodfor determining^the market value of the acquiredland and as laid down in Shaji Kuriakose v. Indian Oil Corpn. Ltd it should satisfy the factors, inter alia (1) the sale must be genuine transaction; (2) the sale deed must have been executedat the time proximateto the date of issuance of notificationunderSection4ofthe Act; (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 oftheplot ofthe land coveredby the 'sale be comparableto the acquired land The sales instances shouldpreferablybe closest to the date of notificationas then alone it wouldsatisfy the touchstoneofthe principles contemplated under Section 23 of the Act, as held in KanwflrSingh vs. Union ofIndia."

¶52

I-ixationof the market value of the acquired land on tlie basis of the sale instances(Ex.PW-1/7to Ex.PW-1/14)ofthe adjoiningvillages, as sought by the appellants stands rightly rejected by the Reference Court as the sale mstancesof this very village are available.When it is so, then there is no need to look for the sale instancesof the adjoining villages. 15. On tlie aforesaidreasoning,adoptionof the L&DO rates to fix the marketvalue ofthe acquiredlands soughtby the appellantsis outrightly rejected. Appellants' counsel had relied upon , decision of the Apex -A.App.No. ]15/2011& comiectedAppealsOfVillage PageSoflS '

¶53

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 developmentcharges was 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 of the fact that the sale instancesof the instantvillage are availableand so the requirementof consideringthe 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. 16. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the appellants had stronglyrelied upon the instance of allotmentof 14.5 hectares (37 acres approximately)by Delhi Development Authority to' the Power Departmentof Delhi 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 above the marketvalue fixed by the ReferenceCourt as the allotmentof the aforesaidland was out of the 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 acquired land to be at par with the aforesaid land allotted to Power Department of Government of Delhi. 17. To meet the aforesaidstand of the appellants,it was pointedout by learned senior counsel for the Respondentsthat aforesaidallotment by Delhi DevelopmentAuthorityto Power Departmentof Government

¶54

LA.App.No. 115/201]&connectedAppealsofVillageBamnoli

¶55

¶56

¶57

of Delhi was made in November, 2007 and the possession of the afoiesaidland was handedover to the PowerDepartmentof Government ofDelhi in February,2008 and the acquisitionofthe land in questionis of November, 2004 and during the interveningperiod land rates had steadilyincreasedand therefore,aforesaidall6tmentcaimot be made the basis to determine the market value of the acquired land as the interveninggapis of three years.

¶58

The factors to be consideredto determinethe marketvalue of the acquiredlands as reiteratedby the^ApexCourt in GeneralManager, Oil and Natural Gas CorporationLtd vs. RameshbhaiJivanbhaiPatel and Anr, (2008) 14 SCC 745, are as under:-

¶59

IS. Primarily, the increase in land prices depends on fourfactors:situationofthe land, nature ofdevelopmentin surroundingarea, availabilityof landfor developmentin the area, and the demand for 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 sudden spurts-orjumps. On the other hand, in urban or semi-urbanareas, where the development isfaster, where the demandfor land is high and where there is constructionactivityall around, the escalation in market price is at a much higher rate, as comparedto rural areas. In somepockets in 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.

¶60

On the other extreme, in remote rural areas where there was no chance of any developmentand hardly any buyers, the pricesstagnatedfor years or rose marginallyat a nominal rate of 1% or 2% per annum. There is thus a significantdifferencein increases in market value of lands _ in urban/semi-urbanareas and increasesin marketvalue of lands in the ruralareas. Therefore,ifthe increasein market value in urban/semi-urbanareas is about 10% to 15%per annum, the correspondingincreasesin ruralareas wouldat

¶61

, LA.App.No. IJ5/2011 & connectedAppealsof VillageBamnoli

¶62

Page 10 of IS

¶63

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 reasons for 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.

¶64

Normally, recourse is taken to the mode of determining the market value by providing appropriate escalation over theproved market value 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 subject acquisitionby only a few years, that is uptofour to five yedrs. Beyondthat it may be unsafe, even if it relates to 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 method with reference to a sale or acquisitionin 1970 or 1980 may have many pitfalls. This is. because, over the course ofyears, the "rate" ofannual increase may \tself undergo drastic change apart from the likelihood of occurrence of varyingperiods of stagnation in prices or sudden spurts in prices affecting the very standard of increase." . '

¶65

Being mindful of tlie ratio of the decision of 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 would not be a usefbl guide to determinethe marketvalue ofthe 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 relevantperiodofthis very villagein questionis

¶66

LA.App. No. II5/2011&connectedAppealsof VillageBamnoli

¶67

Page l| of IS

¶68

available. Therefore, the aforesaid instance of allotment of land to the Power Departmentof Governmentof Delhi has been rightlyrejectedby the Reference Court. '

¶69

¶70

Now what is required to be considered is whether the sale instance . (Ex.R-1)relied upon bythe ReferenceCourt is a comparableinstanceor 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 relevantbutis comparableas it has not been shown by the appellantsas to what are the distinguishingfeatures which v/ould make it inapplicableto determinethe marketvalue ofthe acquiredlands. Findingofthe ReferenceCourtthat when the sale instance(Ex.R-1)was exhibitedno objectionwas raisedby the claimantsand £is per section51A of Land Acquisition Act, 1894, a certified copy of a registered document is acceptable in evidence and since this document has been tenderedin evidence by the Respondents,the same can be read against them, remains unimpeachable. 21. However,to meet the aforesaidfindingof the ReferenceCourt, it was submittedby learned counsel for the appellantsthat opportunityto lead rebuttal evidenceto 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 appellants to lead rebuttal evidence to demolishaforesaidsale instance(Ex.R-1). ~

¶71

First of all, appellantsought to have objectedto the exhibitionof aforesaidsale instance(Ex.R-1).Having not done so, appellantshave to face the legal consequences. Secondly, even if apphcation of the

¶72

LA.App. No. ]15/2011 & connectedAppealsof VillageBamnoli

¶73

I •

¶74

Page 12 of15

¶75

appellants for leading rebuttal evidence was rejected by the Reference Court, nothinghad stoppedthem from moving an applicationfor leading additionalevidence in the appeal to lead evidencein order to demolish the sale instance (Ex.R-1). Not only this, even during the course of hearing,nothingwas urged to show as to how the sale instapce(Ejc.R-1) is not genuine/reliableor comparable.

¶76

In the light of the evidence on record, I am of the considered opinionthat the ReferenceCourthas rightlyreliedupon the sale instance (Ex.R-1),to detemiinethe marketvalue ofthe acquiredlands. Findingno merit in the instant appeals of claimantsand cross-objectionby one of them, the same are dismissedwhile leavingthe partiesto bear their own costs.

So far as appeals of the Respondents are concerned, I find no substancein them, becausethe determinationofthe marketvalue ofthe acquiredland by the ReferenceCourt has been done while relyingupon the sale instance (Ex.R-1) produced by the Respondents themselves. Regardingdoing away ofthe classificationof the acquiredland into 'A' block and 'B' Block by the Reference Court is concerned,I find that this classificationhas areasonablebasis. That is to say, land with top soil and the land withouttop soil cannotbe put at par as the marketvalue ofthe land withouttop soil is boundto be lesserthan the marketvalue of the land with top soil.

¶81

. Endorsingthe price differenfiationbetween 'A' categoryland and 'B' category land, my esteemed brother Pradeep Nandrajog, J., in a recent decisionin LA.App. No.266/2008,titled as Jai Singh &Ors. vsi Union ofIndia &Ors., renderedon'23'"^August 2011, while relyingon the decision of the Division Bench of this court in Gajraj^ Singh vs. Union ofIndia, 2006 (VI) AD Delhi 13, has held as under:-

¶82

LA.App,No. 115/2011 & connectedAppealsofVillageBamnoli

¶83

Page 13 of 15

¶84

"56. In GajrajSingh's case (supra), the price differential worked out was 125,000/- 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 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.

¶85

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 hold that wherever Category 'A Category B and Category 'C have to be differentiatedon price, the differential should be 2.5%."

¶86

Consequentially,the finding of the ReferenceCourt regardingthe j .A' categoiyand 'B' categoryland beingsimilarlysituatedhaving same potentialityand becausethey are acquiredfor the same public puipose, cannot be sustainedin the light of the aforesaidobservations.However, the claim of the Union of India, to seek adoption of the minimum indicative-priceof agriculturalland in Delhi while forgetting that the Appellant- UOI itselfhas relied upon the sale instance(Ex.R-1),merits rejection.

¶87

In view ofthe, afore-goingnarration,I find that no substancein the appeals filed by claimants as well as in cross objection of one of the claimants and the same are dismissed. So far as the appeeils filed by Union of India are concerned,the same are partly allowed to the extent that the compensation awarded by the Reference Court for the 'B' category of lands (as noticed in the Award of the Land Acquisition Collector)is reducedfrom ?17,45,000peracre to ?17,01,375/-acre. 28. Before partingthis order, I would like to bring on recordthat the brevity of this order is occasioned'by the fact that the impugned judgment is well considered on facts and the law. Therefore, I have No. 115/20]1&connectedAppealsofVillageBamnoli 115/20]1&connectedAppealsofVillageBamnoli1&connectedAppealsofVillageBamnoliconnectedAppealsofVillageBamnoliAppealsofVillageBamnoliofVillageBamnoliVillageBamnoliBamnoli j,.

¶88

LA.App.No. 115/20]1&connectedAppealsofVillageBamnoli 115/20]1&connectedAppealsofVillageBamnoli1&connectedAppealsofVillageBamnoliconnectedAppealsofVillageBamnoliAppealsofVillageBamnoliofVillageBamnoliVillageBamnoliBamnoli

¶89

purposefully not 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.

¶90

The above captionedappeals and cross-objectionare disposedof with directionto the Registryto remit tlie compensationamount,if any, depositedby either side with the RegistrarGeneral of this Court, to the concerned Reference Court.

¶91

February 01, 2012 pkb/rs

¶92

JUDGE

¶93

¶94

•A.App.No. 1,5/2011&connectedAppealsof VillageBamnoli

¶95

Page IS of 15

Union of India v. Charan Singh & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union of India v. Charan Singh & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Priti Ranjan Sinha and Anr. Vs National Board of Examinations and Anr.

Management Education & Research Institute Vs Director Higher Education and Ors.

Gurdas Mal Vs M.C.D.

Union of India Vs Yudhveer Singh & Anr.

Rita Sen Vs Gnct of Delhi and Ors.

Union of India Vs Tarawati & Anr.