Partly allowed

Union of India v. Yudhveer Singh & Anr.

Delhi HC1 Feb 2012LA.APP./194/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Delhi disposed of multiple appeals regarding land acquisition compensation in Village Bamnoli. The court upheld the Reference Court's use of local sale instances but rejected the claim for developed land rates. It allowed respondents' appeals to reduce compensation for lower-quality land (without top soil).

What did the court decide?

Compensation for B-category land reduced to 7,01,375/- per acre; appeals for enhancement dismissed; B-category price differential applied.

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

¶1

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:AMULYA Certify that the digital file and physical file have been compared and the digital data i s as p er the physical file and no page is missing.

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

% 4-

¶4

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

¶5

4- LA.APP.115/2011(VILLAGE BAMNOLI) JAI PRAKASH Appellant
Through: Mr.B.S.Maan, Mr.Amit Maan, Mr.R.S.Verma, Mr.Jai Prakash, Ms.Smita Maan and Mr.Jitin I Tewathia, Advocates (R-14-16, 22,30,.34, 38- 45,51-53) Mr.Mohinder Singh Charak, Advocate for appellantin R-112 and respondentinR-63 Mr.B.D.Sharma, Mr.S.K.Rout, i Mr.B.K.Routray,Mr.Vinay Kumar, Advocates in(R-84to 86, 88-102,104) Mr.S.K.RoutandMr.B.K.Routray,Advocates (inR-74andforrespondentonR-79) versus
"^DIA&ANR. Respondents hrough: Mr.Sanjay Poddar, Senior Advocate with Mr.SanjayPathalc,Ms.NavlinSwain, Ms.K.K.KiranandMr.S.N.Pandey,Advocates for UOI Mr.YeeshuJain,AdvocateforUOI(R-1to5 18-37,47,49,50-52,55-73,75-81,113-123 ' Mr.ArunBirbal,Mr-BanlceyBihariSharma, Ms.Amita Singh,Mr.S.K.Sethi and Mr.Kunal Sharma,AdvocatesforDDAin(R-74-77& 80) I Mr.MohinderSinghCharak,Advocate(R-63 ' and 112) , UNION OF I
AND
LA.APP. 16/2011 LA.APP. 19/2011 LAAPP22/2^011 LA.APP. LA.APP. 17/2011 20/2011 LA.APP. LA.APP. 18/2011 21/2011
.. 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
-A.App.No. 115/2011&ccmnectedAppealsofVillageBamnoli Page 1ofJ5
' 1 ' ^ ^ ^ V '' 'w. jl •A-

¶6

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.17)/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	^.APP. 189/2mi
LA.APP. 19i/2011	LA.APP. 193/2011	^^aXpP. 194/201])
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. 306/2011
LA.APP. 3071/2011	LA.APP. 308/2011	LA.APP. 309/2011
LA.APP. 310/2011	LA.APP. 311/2011	LA.APP. 312/2011
LA.APP. 313/2011	LA.APP. 314/2011	LA.APP. 315/2011
liA.APP.316/2011 ^	LA.APP. 317/2011	LA.APP. 318/2011
LA.APP.3192011	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.358j2011	LA.APP. 359/2011	LA.APP. 363/2011
LA.APP.364{2011	LA.APP. 490/2011	LA.APP.491/2011
LA.APP.492j2011	LA.APP. 493/2011	, LA.APP. 494/2011
LA.APP.495^2011 ^	LA.APP. 497/2011	LA.APP. 498/2011
LA.APP.4992011	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	.. LAApp 279/2011
LA.App. 280/2011	LA.App. 281/2011	..
LA.App. 283/2011	LAA 284/2011	LA.App. 282/2011
	.pp.	LAA285/2011
LA.App. 287/2011	LA.App.288/2011	.pp. LA.APP. 184/2011 & C.M.No. 10953/2011 (Cross-objection)

¶7

No.9(50)/2004/L&B/LA/13211of 04 11 2004

¶8

l-^.ApR,No. 115/2011&connectedAppealsofVillageBamnoli

¶9

Pa^e2ofl5

¶10

CORAM:

¶11

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR

ORDE

01.02.2012

Above: captioned appeals and cross-objections relate to acquisitibn of about 21 30 bigha3 of land in Village Bamnoli, Delhi notified;for Planned De\ elopmentof Delhi vide Notificationof 4^ November,2004 under the Land AcquisitionAct, 1894 and since the impugnedorder of . the Referenc e Court in these appeals uniformly grants compensationat i i the rate of ^17,45,000 per acre with statutory benefits, therefore, with •the consent of learned counsel for the parties, who were present at the final hearin g, these matters were heard together and are being adjudicatedApon by this commonorder. I 2. Land i^.cquisiti6nCollectorwhile relyingupon the indicativeprice fixed by Governmentof NCT of Delhi for agriculturalland in Delhi for the period m question,had determinedthe market Value of the acquired land in questionat the aforesaidrate of^15,70,000/-per acre of leveled land in Bloc c A, whereas for the acquiredland excavatedbeyond one meter, i.e.. Block B land, compensationwas determinedat the rate pf ^14,13,000/- per acre.

¶16

Not satisfied with the aforesaid A>vard of Land Acquisition Collector, be fore the Reference Court, appellants/claimantshad relied upon Notifi( nation of 24"' October, 1994 issued by the MunicifJal Corporation of Delhi declaring the land in 20 villages including the instant villa,ge to be urbanized. Reliance was also placed upon Notification of 16 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 Dv^arka,

¶17

LA.App.No. 115/2011 & onnectedAppealsof Village Bamnoli

¶18

Page 3 of 15

¶19

New Delhi.

¶20

While relying upon seven sale instances (Ex.PW-1/7to Ex.PW1/13) of the year 1999, relatingto agriculturalland in VillagePochanpiir purchased a religious society - Radha Swami Satsang, Beas, and certified cop^ of Sale Deed of 27^'' September,2004 (Ex.PW-1/14)of Village Bharthal, enhancementin compensationwas sought. Reference Court upon evaluationof the evidence on record concludedthat there was no evidence to the effect that location,potential and utility of the! land in the ^^illagesofBharthal,Pochanpurand Bamnoli is similarand had chosen ijiotI to rely upon the aforesaid sale instances as the Sale ! instanceofthis ver^' villagewas available. I 5. In the absence of the evidence of the Vendor/Vendee of the aforesaid sale instances. Reference Court had discarded the aforesaid sale instancesjreliedupon by the appellants/claimants,while advertingto paragraphno: 29 ofthe Apex Court decision^nLai Chand vs. Union of India and Am., (2009) 15 SCC 769. Before dealing with the sale instances(Ex.|R-Iand Ex.R-II)ofVillageBamnoli,ReferenceCourthad refused to ajjply Delhi Development Authority auction rate for the commercialp^otsI or the schedule of market rates for Vasant Vihar by placmg imphpit reliance upon the Apex Court decision in Lai Chand (supra) to hold that market price for the developed land cannot be applied whilj determining the market price of the undeveloped agricultural land in Delhi. ! 6. To fortiify tlie aforesaidfinding, ReferenceCourt has extensively quotedthe passagesfrom the Apex Court decisionin Lai Chand(supra) and thereafter,!had proceededto discard heavilyrelied upon instanceof allotment of 4.5 acres of the acquired land by Delhi Development Authorityto the PowerDepartmentof Governmentof NCT of Delhi for

¶21

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

¶22

Page 4 of If;

¶23

constructionof 715 Mega Watt Gas Based Power Plant/Project,whik holding as under:-

¶24

77.1 The allotmentof1.5 hectareoflandfor apremiumof ^297y42 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 withoutpermissionofDBA in view ofSection 12 of t^e Delhi Development Act, 1957 determination of premj-umforallotmentofland in developmentarea is not an ordinarysale betweena prudentbuyerandseller. Premium of land in such an allotmentcannot be called the market pricei^ of land which a prospective buyer of similar land sittin'gin his armchairwouldbe willingto pay.

¶25

I I 78. 1 Moreover, there is a time gap ofthreeyears 'betweenI 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 3years ofNotification under^ Section 4 of LA Act cannot be taken into consi'^erationfor determiningmarket value on the date of Notificationunder Section 4. As per Section 24 ofLA Act, the Courtshall not take into considerationany increase iUto the vct * ^ P ^7_ 7 7 . I--..-'Jue ofthe landacquiredlikely to accruefrom the use to wh 'ch it will beput when required." 7. On the aspectofthe acquiredland being declaredurbanizedand of being in th^ developmentzone, the pertinentfindings returned by the ReferenceCourt are as under:1

¶26

Land ofpetitioneris agriculturalland although it is ' in urbanized area and in development zone. The land \ continued to be agricultural land 3ven 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\wouldnegatepossibility;of land in question having potentialfor buildingsite even in nearfuture. • ' I 95. The( petitionerhas brought no evidence, leave aside documentaryevidence that the acquiredland was suitable

¶27

LA.App. No. 115/201]&|onnectedAppealsofVillageBamnoli 'Page 5 of IS

¶28

for putting up buildings, be they residential or, commercial or industrial as the case may be. There is no building activity\startedon the land in questioneven afterpassing of a decade since area was urbanized. "

¶29

On the question of potentiahty of the acquired land, Reference Court has taken note of the fact that this acquired land is surrounded on ail four sides by Villages - Bharthal, Bijwasan, Pochanpur and Dhul Siras. Noticing thatI acquired land is in the vicinity of. Dwarka, whereI DDA is developing colonies and therefore, adoption of the minimum rates for agriculturalland fixed by the Governmentof Delhi by the Land AcquisitionCbllectorwas not justified.Upon consideringthe two sale instancesof 25"^ October,2004 (Ex.R-1)and of 20^'' April, 2004 (Ex.R2) of this ver}f village, ReferenceCourt had discardedthe sale instance (Ex.R-2) as sale considerationof ?9j02,496per acre was found to be depressed and had chosen to rely upon the sale instance (Ex.R-1) depicting sale consideration of 7,45,108 which was found to be comparable.

¶30

In the instant appeals, it was vehementlyurged on behalfof the appellantsthat the effect of Notificationof 24^*" October, 1994 declaring the acquired Ijands being fit for urbanizationand Notificationof 16^'' Octpber, 2000 regarding the change of land use under the Master Plein of Delhi has not Deen consideredby the ReferenceCourt to appreciatethe true potentialofthe acquiredland. Reliancewas placedupon decisionof the Apex Court in SpecialLand AcquisitionOfficer iSi Am vs. M.K: RafiqSaheb, (12011) 7 SCC 714, by learnedcounselfor the appellantsto contend that i:i view of the aforesaid Notifications,the acquired land cannot be treated as an agriculturalland for determinationof its market • • value. I : 10. Aforesaidcontentionis noticedfor being outrightlyrejectedas the

¶31

^A.App,No. 115/201] & connectedAppealsof VillageBarrinoli

¶32

Page 6 of 15

¶33

acquired lands may not to be termed as agricultural land but they wei;e certajinlyundeveloped.Government'sminimumrates for the agricultural land applicab e to Delhi have been rightly discarded by the Preference Court. So, re iance placed upon M::K. Rafiq Saheb (supra), is clearly misplaced, as the Reference Court has deterinined the market value of the acquired land v^hilerelying upon a sale exemplar of this yqyj village. 11. There is no question of discarding the aforesaid NotificEitions. In fact, inspite of the aforesaid Notifications no development activity was there on the acquired lands as no permission was sought by the ov/ners of the acquiredlands under Delhi DevelopmentAct and therefore, it caii be safely concludedthat the acquired lands were undevelopedand the same could not be comparedwith developedlands for determiningthe market value of the acquired land. Thus, relianceplaced by appellant's counselupon Udho Dass vs. StateofHaryana & Ors., 2010 (9) SCALE I 41 is of no avail. |

¶34

Rejectic|n of auction rates of Delhi DevelopmentAuthority, in Sector 20 ancj 22 of Dwarka, by the Reference Court, is assailed b)^ learnedcounsel1 for the' appellants' by contendingthat the acquiredland isi fully compara.bleI ' with the aforesaid land and is in proximity and therefore,the marketvalue ofthe acquiredland oughtto have been fixed 1 with referencetoi the auctionrates of the Delhi DevelopmentAuthority. ReferenpeCourt h^s not only relied upon the decisionof Apex Court in Lai Chand vs.j Union ofIndia and Anr., (2009) 15 SCC 769 but has extensively qrjoted relevant passages therefrpm to hold that the sale considerationof the developedlands cannot be applied to the acquired lands which are undisputedly undeveloped. At the hearing in these ( • • I appeals, learned counsel for the appellant could not distinguish the! decisionof the Apex Court in Lai Chand (supra), whose ratio squarely

¶35

A.App. No. 115/2011 & connectedAppealsofVillageBamncli • Page 7 of 15

¶36

apphes to the instant cases. Therefore,,!find that the Reference Court has rightlyreilisedto apply Delhi DevelopmentAuthorityauction rates for determiningthe marketvalue ofthe acquiredland. i 13. ^While reiteratingthe well settledprincipleof law that comparable sale mstances, are the best piece of evidence to be consideredby the Court for the xirpose of determiningthe compensation,Apex Court in its recent deci 3ion m Radha Mudaliyar Vs. SpecialTahsildar(Land Acquisition T^mil Nadu Housing Board) (2010) 13 SCC 384 has observedas un^er:I

¶37

•13. Comparablesales instancesare the safestmethodfor laid dm^ in Shaji Kuriakosev. Indian Oil Corpn Ltd it should satisfy the factors, inter alia (I) the sale must'be genuine transaction; (2) the sale deed must have been executedat the time proximateto the date of issuanceof underSection4ofthe Act; (3) the landcovered the landcov^edbyu the"! sale"""''ymust be °fthe,cguired similarto the acquiredland; (4) landand (5) size oftheplot ofthe landcoveredby tL sale be comparableto the acquired land, ne sales instances s ouldpreferablybe closest to the date of notificationas hen alone it wouldsatisfythe touchstoneofthe-principles . contemplated under Section 23 of the Act, as held in KanwarS^ingh vs. Union ofIndia."

¶38

¶39

Fixationjftlie marketvalue of tlie acquiredland on the basis of the sale instances(Ex.PW-1/7to Ex.PW-I/I4)of the adjoiningvillages,:: as sought by the appellants stands rightly rejected by the Reference Court as tlie sale instancesof this very villageare available.When it is i so. then there is|no need to look for the sale instancesof the adjoining ! villages. j '' 15. Off the afojresaidreasoning,adoptionof the L&DO rates to fix the ' marketvalue ofthe acquiredlands sought by the appellantsis outrightly, rejected. Appellants' counsel had rehed upon decision of the Apex .^ 1.A.APP.No. ,,5/201,&o„m.4,edAppealsofVillageBampCi '

¶40

Court in Kiran Tandon vs. Allahabad Development Authority, (2004) 10 see 745 and in Valliyammal and Anr vs. Special Tehsildar (Land Acquisition) and Anr., AIR 2011 SC 2937 to assert that deduction of 40% towards development charges was improper and where large area, not fally developed,1 is_ acquired,_ normally, deduction of about 33% isI permissible. The need to look for sale instances in thej vicinity is obviatedin visw 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 instancei(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 Powe]* ri Departmentof Delhi Governmenton leaseholdbasis at a considercition of ^297.42 Ices per acre with 2.5%o annual ground rent to claim enhancementcjf compensationat the rate of ^^40 lacsper acre over and above the marketvalue fixed by the ReferenceCourt as the allotmentof the aforesaidlandI was out ofthe acquiredland. With much vehemence I ' It was asserted by learned counsel for the appellantsthat the aforesaid allotment is plearly comparable and therefore, .on its basis the| ^ compensationought to be enhancedwhile treatingthe acquiredland to, be at par wit^ the aforesaid land allotted to Power Department of| Governmentofj Delhi. I 17. To meetltheaforesaidstand of the appellants,it was pointed out| by learned senjor counsel for the Respondentsthat aforesaidallotmenti by Delhi DevelopmentAuthorityto Rower Departmentof Government'

¶41

(.A.App.No. n5/2011 &conjiectedI AppealsofVillageBamnoli

¶42

Page 9 of 15

¶43

of Delhi was made in November, 2007 and the possession of the aforesaidland was handedover to the PowerDepartmentof Government of Delhi in Fejbniary,2008 and the acquisitionof the land in questionis of November,1 2004 and during the, interveningperiod land rates had steadilyincreasedand therefore,aforesaidallotmentcarmot be made the basis to determine the market value of the acquired land as the I mtervemnggap is of three years. | 1 1 18. The factors to be consideredto determinethe marketvalue of the acquiredlandsjas reiteratedby the Apex Court in GeneralManager, Oil and NaturalClas CorporationLtd vs. RameshbhaiJivanbhaiPateland Am, (2008) U' SCC 745, are as under:-

¶44

1 1 . :

¶45

J3. Pi^imarily, the increase in land prices depends on fourfacxors: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,Iincrease in prices would be slow, steady and gradual,crvn^n withoutany sudden7 _7 spurts orjumps. On the other hand, in urban or semi-urbanareas, where the development isfaster, where the demandfor landis high andwhere there IS constn^ctionactivityall around, the escalationin market price is Qt a much higherrate, as comparedto ruralareas. 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.

¶46

Oj the other extreme, in remote,rural areas where there wa^ no chance of any developmentand hardly any buyers, thepricesstagnatedfor years or rose fnarginallyat a nominal rate of 1<% or 2% per annum. There is thus a significamdifferencein increasesin market value oflands in urban/,semi-urbanareas and increasesin marketvalue of lands mthe ruralareas. Therefore,ifthe increasein market value in wban/semi-urbanareas is about 10% to 15% per annum, tl^e correspondingincreasesin ruralareas wouldat

¶47

LA,App.No. 115/2011&conjiectedAppealsof VillageBamnoli

¶48

Page 10 of IS

¶49

best be only around half of it, that is about 5% to 7.5%per annum. This rule of thumb refers to the general trend in the nineties,,to be adopted in the absence of clear and specific evidence relating to increase in prices. Where there are special reasonsfor applyinga higher rate of increase, or any specific evidence relating to the actual increase in prices, then the increase to be applied would depend upon the same.

¶50

Normally, recourse is taken to the mode of determining the market value by providing appropriate escalationover the provedmarketvalue ofnearby lands in previous years (as evidenced by sale transactions or is no acquisitions), where there evidence of any contemporaneous sale transactions or acquisitions of comparable lands in the neighbourhood. Thesaid method is reasonably safe where the relied-on sale transactions/ acquisitionsprecede the subject acquisitionby only a few years, that is uptofour to five years. Beyondthat it may be unsafe, even ifit relates to a neighbouringland. What may be a reliablestandardif the gap is only afew years, may become unsafe and unreliablestandardwhere the gap is larger. For example,for determiningthe marketvalue ofa lan4 acquired in 1992, adopting the annual increase method with reference to a sale or acquisitionin 1970 or 1980 m lay have many pitfalls. This is because, over the course ofyears, the "rate" of annual increase may itself undergo drastic change apart from the likelihood of occurre, 7ce of varyingperiods-of stagnation in prices or sudden 'spurts in prices affecting the very standard of increase.

¶51

Being mindful of the ratio of the decision of the Apex Court in ONGC^(supra), I find that the instance of institutional allotment (Ex.PW13/l) of the year 2007 heavily relied upon by the appellants would not be useful guide to determinethe marketvalue ofthe land in question, as tlje said allotmentwas made after aperiod of three years from the date of acquisitionofthe land in question.It is so said because the sale exemplarofthe relevantperiodofthis very villagein questionis

¶52

LA.App. No. 115/2011 & connectedI Appealsof VillageBamnoli

¶53

Page 1] of 15

¶54

available. Therefore, the aforesaid instance of allotment of land to tKe Power Department of Government of Delhi has been rightly rejected by i I the Reference Court. ' . i' : i'j 20. Noww! lat is required to be considered is whether the sale instance , (Ex.R-1) relie d upon by the Reference Court is a comparable instance c not. Undisput2dly,sale instance(Ex.R-1)is of this very villageand is df October, 2004 whereas the land in question was acquired vidp Notification of November, 2004. Evidently, aforesaid sale instance .1^-1) is not only relevantbut is comparableas it has not been shown by th^ appelknts as to what are the distinguishingfeatures which would i make it inapp]icableto determinethe marketvalue ofthe acquiredlands. Finding of the ReferenceCourtthat when the sale instance(Ex.R-1)was exhibited no cDbjectionwas raisedby the claimantsand as per section51A of Land / [cquisition Act, 1894, a certified copy of a registered document is acceptable in evidence and since this document has been j tendered in e.idence by the Respondents,the same can be read against them, remains ;unimpeachable. | I 21However, to meet the aforesaidfinding.of the ReferenceCourt, it was submittedby learned counsel for the appellantsthat opportunityto lead, rebuttal e videnceto show that sale instance(Ex.R-1)is not reliabl ,or bona fide, aQapplication to lead rebuttal evidence was filed before the ReferenceCourt which was illegallyrejected^videorder of25"' August 2010 and therefore, this matter needs to be remanded back to the • i • I Reference Court to enable the appellants to lead rebuttal evidence to demolishaforesaidsale instance(Ex.R-1). '; • |j 22. First of all, appellantsought to haye objectedto the exhibitiono ' aforesaidsale nstance (Ex.R-1).Having not done so, appellantshave to face the legal consequences. Secondly, even if application of the

¶55

LA.App. No. 115/2,011& connectedAppealsofVillageBamnoli

¶56

Page 12 of 15 :

¶57

appellants for leading rebuttal evidence was rejected by the Reference Court, nothi:i:ig had stoppedthem from moving an applicationfor leading additional e adence in the appeal to lead evidence in order to demolish the sale ins .ance (Ex.R-1). Not only this, even during the course;of hearipg,nothingwas urgedto show as-to how the sale instance(Ex.R-1) is not genuine/reliableor comparable. ' 23. In the light of the evidence on record, I am of the considered opinion that he ReferenceCourthas rightlyreliedupon the sale instance (Ex.R-1)to aeterminethe marketvalue ofthe acquiredlands. Findingno merit mthe pstant appeals of claimantsand cross-objectionby one of them, the same are dismissedwhile leavingthe partiesto bear their own costs.

¶58

So far as appeals of the Respondents are concerned, I find no substance in ihem, becausethe determinationof the marketvalue of the acquired land by the ReferenceCourthas been done while relyingupon tlie sale instance (Ex.R-1) produced by the Respondents themselves. Regardingdojng away ofthe classificationof the acquiredland into 'A' block and 'B| Block by the ReferenceCourt is concerned,I find that this classificajionhas areasonablebasis. That is to say, land witli top soil and the lajid withouttop soil cannotbe put at par as the marketvalue ofthe land wifcouttop soil is boundto be lesserthan fte marketvalue of the land with t]3p soil. ! 25. Endorsingthe price differentiationbetween'A' categoryland and 'B' category |and, my esteemed brother Pradeep Nandrajog, J., in a recent decisiorjin LA.App. No.266/2008,titled as Jai Singh& Ors. vs'. Union ofIndia&Ors., renderedon 23'^ August2011, while relyingon the deqision of the Division Bench of this court in Gajruj Singh vs Union oflndia^2006 (VI) AD Delhi 13, has held as under-

¶59

-A.App, No. ] 15/201] & connected AppealsofVillageBamnoH Page 13 of 15

¶60

Ip. GajrajSingh's case (supra), the price differential worked out was ^25,000/- per acre. I have noted hereinabove that the acquisition in Gajraj Singh's case pertained to the date 15.11.1996.In Gajraj Singh's case the pricefor Category 'A ' landdeterminedwas ^9,76,121/-per acre and for Category 'B' land the price determinedwas ^9,51,121/-per acre and the p'rice differentialcomes to about 2.5% with reference to the price of Category 'A' land.

¶61

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

¶62

Consequentially,the finding ofthe ReferenceCourt regardingthe A category^nd 'B' categoryland being similarlysituatedhaving same potentialit}'and becausethey are acquiredfor the same public purjDose, cannot be sustainedin the light ofthe aforesaidobservations.However the claim of 1|the Union of India, to seek adoption of the minimum' indicative-prijeof agriculturalland in Delhi while forgettingthat the Appellant- l^OI itselfhas reliedupon the sale instance(Ex.R-1),merits rejection. | I 27. In viewjofI the, afore-goingnarration,I find that no substancein the appeals filed py claimants as well as in cross objectionof one of the claimants and the same are dismissed. So far as the appeals filed by Union of Indi^ are concerned,the same are partly allowedto the extent tJiat the compensation awarded by the Refsrence Court for the 'B' category of lands (as noticed in the Award of the Land Acquisition Collector)is reducedfrom ^17,45,000peracre to 7,01,375/-acre': 28. Before partingthis order, I would like to bring on record that the brevity of th^s order is occasioned by the fact that the impugned judgment is well considered on facts and the law. Therefbre, I have i ' ' •A.App. No. 115/20]1&cojinectedAppealsofVillageBamnoli Page 14

¶63

purposefully pot adverted tor the entire evidence,on record and the relevant evidence, i.e. of the sale exemplars has been taken into considerationj^y1 me in this order. I 29. The abpve captionedappeals and cross-objectionare disposedof with direction;to the Registryto remit the con^pensationamount, if any, depositedby cjitherside with;theRegistrarGeneralof this Court, to the concerned Reference Court.

¶64

February 01, 2012 pkb/rs ;

¶65

NIL GAUR) JUDGE

¶66

ch iA ^
C T'X

¶67

fApp.No. >15/2011&connectedAppeal,ofVillageBamnoli Page 15 of 15

Union of India v. Yudhveer Singh & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union of India v. Yudhveer 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 Charan Singh & Anr.

Rita Sen Vs Gnct of Delhi and Ors.

Union of India Vs Tarawati & Anr.