LA.APP./94/2011 of UOI Vs RAJ SINGH & ANR

H:IN THE HIGH COURTOF DELHIAT NEW DELHI%

Signature Not Verified

Digitally Signed By:AMULYACertify that the digital file andphysical file have been compared andthe digital data is as per the physicalfile and no page is missing.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

LA.APP. 115/2011(VILLAGEBAMNOLI)

mmM-:f.-'...fi-•• -'v-

(Relatingto NotificationNo.9(50)/2004/L&B/LA/13211of 64.11.2004'1/2007-2008ofSection06.08.2008,4oftheVillage LandAcquisitionBamnoli,NewAct,Delhi) 1894& Award'No.;,:

^/AJArp,..No. 115/2011&connectedAppealsofVillageBamnoli

Page 2 of 15

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL 'GAUR

ORD'ER01,02.2012

1.Above;captionedappealsand cross-objectionsrelateto acquisitionof about2130 bighas of land in Village Bamnoli, Delhi notified;forPlanned De-velopmentof Delhi vide Notificationof 4^*" November,2004Iiunder tl|e Land AcquisitionAct, 1894 and since the impugnedorder,ofthe Reference Court in these appeals uniformlygrants compensation'atthe rate of ^17,45,000per acre with statutorybenefits,therefore,withIthe consentDf learned counsel for the parties, who were present at thefinalhearing, these matters were heard together and are beingMjudicated upon by this common order!2.LandAcquisitionCollectorwhilerelyinguponthe indicativepricefixed by Go^^emmentof NCT of Delhi for agriculturalland in Delhi forthe periodin question,had determinedthe marketvalue ofthe acquiredland in questionat the aforesaidrate of^15,70,000/-per acre ofleveledland in Blocc A, whereas for the acquiredland excavatedbeyond onemeter, i.e., Elock land, compensationw^s determinedat the rate of^14,13,000/-per acre.;3.Not satisfied with the aforesaid Award of Land AcquisitionCollector,before the Reference Court, appellants/claimantshad reliedupon Notification,of 24^'' October, 1994issued by the MunicipalI. ''iCorporationjof Delhi declaring the land in 20 villages including theinstant village to be urbanized. Reliance was also placed uponNotificationpf 16'^ October, 2000 declaringchange of land use of theacquired land in questionand thereupon,Delhi DevelopmentAuthorityhad preparedZonalDevelopmentPlan for DwarkaSub City in Dv^^arl^,

LA.App.No.115/2011 & connected Appeals of Village BamnoliPages of 15

"TIV'

New Delhi.

4.While seven sale instancesto Ex.PW- relying upon(Ex;PW-l/7, 1/13)ofthe year 1999,relatingto agriculturallandin VillagePochanpurpurchased by religious society —Radha Swami Satsang, Beas, andcertifiedcopy of Sale Deed of 27''' September,2004 (Ex.PW-1/14);^fVillageBharthal,enhancementin compensationwas sought. ReferenceCourt evaluationof the evidence on record concludedthat there uponwas no evidenceto the effectthat,location,potentialand utilityofthe•land in the VillagesofBharthal,Pochanpurand Bamnoliis similarandI.•Vhad chosen riot to the aforesaid sale instances as the Sale rely uponImstance of this very village was available.5.In the absence of the evidence of the Vendor/Vendeeof theaforesaidsale instances,Reference Court had discardedthe aforesaidsale instancesreliedupon by the appellants/claimants,whileadvertingtoparagraph no:29 ofthe Apex Courtdecisionin Lai Chandra. Union 6fIndiaand Anr., (2009) 15 SCC 769. Before dealing with the saleinstances(ExR-I and Ex.R-II)ofVillageBamnoli,ReferenceCourthadrefused to apply Delhi DevelopmentAuthority auction rate for thecomanercialplots or the scheduleof market rates for Vasant Vihar byplacing implicitrelianceupon the Apex Court decision in Lai Chand(supra) to hold that market price for' the developed land cannot beapplied while determining the market price of the undeveloped••agriculturalland in Delhi.!if6.To fortifythe aforesaidfinding, ReferenceCourt has extensiveh^quotedthe passagesfrom the Apex Courtdecisionin LaiChand(supra)and thereafter,had proceededto discardheavilyreliedupon instanceofallotmentof4.5 acres of the acquired land by Delhi Developmen;Authority to the PowerDepartmentofgovernmentofNCT ofDelhi for

LA.App.No. 115/2011& connectedAppealsofVillageBamnoli

Page 4 of Ifi

constmction of 715 Mega Watt Gas Based Power Plant/Project,whileholding asunder:-Iholding asunder:-I

"77.The allotmentof1.5hectareoflandfor aof .premiumpremium?2P''.42 lakh acre is an interallotment. ' per departmental•Buye^r and seller both are agencies of state. Since nodevelopment/constructioncan take place on the land inquestionwithoutpermissionofDDA in view ofSection 12of tl^e Delhi Development"'Act, 1957 determination of 'premiumfor allotmentoflandin developmentarea Is not anordinarysale betweenaprudentbuyerandseller.Premiumofldridin such an allotmentcannot be called the marketpricey of land which prospectivebuyer of similar landsittingin his armchairwouldbe willingtopay. per departmental•Buye^r and seller both are agencies of state. Since nodevelopment/constructioncan take place on the land inquestionwithoutpermissionofDDA in view ofSection 12of tl^e Delhi Development"'Act, 1957 determination of 'premiumfor allotmentoflandin developmentarea Is not anordinarysale betweenaprudentbuyerandseller.Premiumofldridin such an allotmentcannot be called the marketpricey of land which prospectivebuyer of similar landsittingin his armchairwouldbe willingtopay.

78.Moreover,there is tirrtegap ofthreeyears betweendateof Notificationunder Section 4 of LA Act which is04.11.2004 and date of allotment which is 25.11.2007.Marketprice ofland allottedafter 3years ofNotificationunder Section 4 of LA. Act cannot be taken intoconsiderationfor determiningmarketvalue on the date ofNotificationunderSection 4. As per Section24 ofLA Act,the Courtshallnot take into consideration increasetoanythe valueofthe landto accruefrom the useacquiredlikelyto whichit will beput when required. 'Marketprice ofland allottedafter 3years ofNotificationunder Section 4 of LA. Act cannot be taken intoconsiderationfor determiningmarketvalue on the date ofNotificationunderSection 4. As per Section24 ofLA Act,the Courtshallnot take into consideration increasetoanythe valueofthe landto accruefrom the useacquiredlikelyto whichit will beput when required. '

7.On the aspectofthe acquiredlandbeingdeclaredurbanizedand of in thetiie returned thebeing developmentzone, pertinentfindingsbyReference Court are as under

"94.Landofpetitioneris agriculturallandalthoughit isinurmnized area and in developmentzone. The landinurmnized area and in developmentzone. The landcontinued to be agriculturalland even till issuance ofNotifiization under Section 4 of LA Act in the 2004 yearwould show that in spite of being in capital of countryhaving explosive population, no •, residential colony,approvedor unapprovedcame up on the land in questionand it would negatepossibilityofland in questionhavingpotentialfor buildingsiteeven in nearfuture. yearwould show that in spite of being in capital of countryhaving explosive population, no •, residential colony,approvedor unapprovedcame up on the land in questionand it would negatepossibilityofland in questionhavingpotentialfor buildingsiteeven in nearfuture.

95.The[ petitionerhas broughtno evidence, leave asidedocumentaryevidencethat the acquiredland was suitableLA.App.No. 1]5/20n &. connectedAppealsofVillageBamnoli

for putting up buildings, be they residential or conirn'ercialor industrial as the case be. There is no may buildingactivitystartedon the landin questioneven afterpassingof\a decaae since area was urbanized."•

8.On thequestion of potentiality of the acquired land, ReferenceCourt has takennote of the fact thatthis acquiredland is surroundedonail four sidesby Villages - Bharthal, Bijwasan, Pochanpurand DhuliSiras. NoticinI that acquiredland is in the vicinity of Dwarka, whereDDA is deve'oping colonies and therefore, adoption of the minimumrates for agriciilturalland fixedby the GovernmentofDelhi by the LandAcquisitionCollectorwas not justified.Upon consideringthe two saleinstancesof 25'^^ October,2004 (Ex.R-1)and of 20^'^ April, 2004 (Ex.R-2) of this ver}' village.ReferenceCourt,had discardedthe sale instance(Ex.R-2) as sale considerationof ^9,02,496per acre was found to bedepressed and had chosen to rely upon the sale instance (Ex.R-1)depicting sak consideration of ?17,45,108 which was found to becomparable.",, 'i

9.In the instant appeals,it was vehementlyurged on behalfof theappellantsthat the effectofNotification,of24? October, 1994 declaringthe acquired lands being fit for urbanizationand Notificationof 16^^October, 2000regarding the change of land use under the.Master Plan ofDelhi has notbeen consideredby the ReferenceCourtto appreciatethetrue potential (f the acquiredland. Reliancewas placedupon decisionof]the Apex Cou"t in SpecialLand AcquisitionOfficer& Am vs, MJLIRajflq Saheb, (2011) 7 see 714, by learnedcounselfor the appellantstocontendthati1 view of the aforesaidNotifications,the acquired landcannot be treaed as an agricultural land for determination of its markedvalue.

10.Aforesaidcontentionis noticedfor beingoutrightlyrejectedas theLA.App."No. 115/2011 & connectedAppealsofVillageBarrinoliPage 6 of IS

lands not to be termed asland but wereacquired may agricultural theycertainlyundeveloped.Government'sminimimrates for the agricultural!land applicabe to Delhi have been rightly discarded by the- PLeferenceCourt. So, reiance placed upon M.K, Rafiq Saheb (supra), is clearlymisplaced,asthe Reference Court has determined the market value ,cfthe acquiredlandwhilerelyingupon,asaleexemplarofthis very village.11.There is no questionof discardingthe aforesaid.NotificEitions.Infact, inspiteofthe aforesaidNotificationsno' developmentactivitywasthere on the acquiredlands as no permissionwas soughtby the ov/nersofthe acquiredlandsunderDelhiDevelopmentAct and therefore,itcanbe safely concludedthat the acquiredlands were undevelopedand thesame could not be comparedwith developedlands for determiningthemarketvalue of the acquiredland. Thus, relianceplacedby appellant'scounsel upon UdhoDass vs. StateofMaryana & Ors., 2010 (9) SCALE41 is of no avail.

12.Rejecticn of auction rates of Delhi DeveloprhentAuthority, inSector20 and22 of Dwarka, by the Reference Court, is assailed bylearnedcounselfor the appellantsby contendingthatthe acquiredland isfully comparable with the aforesaid land and is in proximity and''''therefore,the iparketvalueofthe acquiredlandoughtto have been fixedt•Iwith referenceto the auctionrates ofthe Delhi DevelopmentAuthority!IIReferenceCourthas not reliedthe decisionof Courtin onlyuponApexLai Chand vs. Union ofIndia and Ann, (2009) 15' SCC 769 but hasextensively quoted j^elevant passages therefrom to hold that the sal^, considerationof the developedlands cannot be appliedto the acquiredlands which are undisputedlyundeveloped. At the hearing in thesejappeals, learned counsel for the a|3pellant could not distinguish thedecision of theApex Court in Lai Chand(supra),whose ratio squarely

LA.App. No. 115/2011 & con nected Appeals of Village Bamnoli

Page 7 of 15

applies to the instantcases. Therefore,I find that the ReferenceCourthas rightlyrefiisedto applyDelhiDevelopmentAuthorityauctionratelfor determiningthe marketvalueofthe acquiredland.'13.Whilereiteratingthe well settledprincipleoflawthatcompamblesale instances/are the best piece of evidenceto be consideredby theCourt for theofthe Court ir. purposedetermining compensation,ApexIts recent decisionin 'RadhaMudaliyar Vs. SpecialTahsildar(LandAcquisition Tamil Nadu Housing Board) (2010) 13 SCC 384 has|observed as under:-'

13. Comparablesalesinstancesare the safestmethoHforthe marketvalue oftheland and asdetermining^ acquiredlaid down in ShajiKuriakosev. Indian Oil Corpn. Ltd itshould s2tisfy the factors, inter alia (I) the sale must hegenuinetransaction; (2) the sale deed must have beenexecutedat the timeproximateto the date of issuanceofnotificatiby7 they:/ sale./ ^on7 must under^J. be,Section in. theI 7 vicinity4of•<•'the• Act;ofthe (3) acquired the"tci twAtu landland; uuvereacovered (4)the landcoveredby thesale must be similarto the acquiredland and•(5) size oftheplotofthe landcoveredby the salebecompashould1 iSbe closest^^quiredto land the date The of salesnotification instancesaspr^eferablythen alone it wouldsatisfythe touchstoneoftheprinciplescontemplatedunder Section 23 of ihe Act, as held in".KanwarSinghvj. UnionofIndia:

14.Fixationofthe marlietvalue ofthe acquiredland on the basis ofthe saleinstances(Ex.PW-1/7to Ex.PW-1/14)ofthe adjoiningvillages,'as sought by the appellantsstands rightly rejected by the Reference'Courtas tlie sale instancesofthisare available.When it is very village then there is no need to look for the sale instancesoftheso, adjoiningvillages.

.15.On the aforesaidreasoning,adoptionofthe L&DO ratesto fix themarketvalueofthe acquiredlands soughtby the appellantsis outrightlyrejected. Appelk£.nts counsel had relied decision of the upon Apexi,^.App.No.115/2011&connectedAppealsofVillageBamnoiiPage 8 of 15

Court in Kiran Tandon vs, AllahabadDevelopmentAuthority,(2004)10 see 745 and in Valliyammalahd Anr vs; Special Tehsildar(LandAcquisition)ind Am., AIR 2011 SC 2937 to assert that deduction of• 40% towardsdevelopmentchargeswas improperand where large ar^a,not fully developed,is acquired,normally, deductionof about 33% i'spermissible.'he need to look for sale instances in the vicinity isobviated in view of the fact that the sale instancesofthe instantvillageare availableand theoftheof sq requirementconsidering applicabilityfthe sale instarices (Ex.PW-1/7to Ex.PW-1/14)would arise only whensaleinstance(Ex.R-1) is found to be not comparable. Therefore,referenceto the aforesaiddecisionsby learnedcounselfor the appellant^is of no consequence.•16.During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the appellantshadrslied the instanceof allotmentof 14.5 hectares stronglyupon (37acres approximately)by Delhi DevelopmentAuthority to the PowerDepartmentof'DelhiGovernmenton leaseholdbasis at considerELtiori•oft297.42Icper acre with 2.5% annual ground rent to claimenhancementcfcompensationat the rate of^40 lacsper acre over andabovethe marketvalue fixed by the.ReferenceCourtas the allotmentofthe aforesaidland was out ofthe acquiredland. With much vehemence'It was asserted! by learned counsel for the• appellants.that the aforesaid'''allotment is clearly comparable and therefore, on its basis thecompensationj)ughtto be enhancedwhile treatingthe acquiredland tobe at with the aforesaid land allotted to Power of par DepartmentGovernment of Delhi.-17.To meet the aforesaidstand ofthe appellants,it was jjointedout'1by learnedsenjor counsel for the Respondentsthat aforesaidallotment!by Delhi Deve opmentAuthorityto Power DepartmentofGovernment

..4-Ap,No. 115/2011 & con:nectedAppealsof VillageBamnoliPage 9 of 15

of Delhiwasmade in November, 2007 and the possession of ther.Iaforesaid landwas handedoverto the PowerDepartmentof Governmentof Delhi in Febr^ary,2008 and the acquisitio};!ofthe land in questionisof November,2004 and during the interveningperiod land rates hadsteadilyincreased and therefore,aforesaidallotmentcannotbe made thebasis to determine the market value of the acquired land as theintervening gaip is of three years.'i j

18.Thefaci;ors to be considered to determine the market value of theIacquired landsas reiteratedby the Apex Courtin GeneralManager.,OilandNatural Gas CorporationLtdvs. RameshbhaiJivanbhaiPate!andIAnr, (2008)SCC 745, are as under:-I

I"13. the increase in land on Primarily,prices'dependsfourfac'iors: situationofthe land, natureofdevelopmentinsurrouna^ingarea, availabilityoflandfor developmentinthe area^ and the demandfor land in the area. In ruralareas, unless there is any prospectofdevelopmentin thevicinity^, increase in prices would be slow, steady andgradual, withoutany suddenspurtsorjumps. On the otherhand, inurbanorsemi-urbanareas, where the developmentisfaster,wherethe demandforlandis high andwherethereis construction activity,all around, the escalation in marketpricf is at much higherrate, as comparedto rural areas.In somepocketsin big cities, due to rapiddevelopmentandhigh de nand for land, the escalations in prices havetouched even 30% to 50% or, more per year, during thenineties.•

14.On the other extreme, in remote rural areas wherethere was no chance ofany developmentand hardly any tl^eforor roseatbuyers,pricesstagnatedyears marginallya nominhl rate of 1% or 2% per annum. There is thus asignificaritdifferencein increasesin marketvalue oflandsin urban/semi-urbanareasandincreasesin marketvalueoflands iniherural areas. Therefore,ifthe increasein marketvalue inurban/semi-urbanareas is about 10% to 15%perannum,t,le correspondingincreases in rural areas would at

LA.App. No. 115/2011 Sc con lectedAppealsof VillageBamnoii ;

Page 10 of If)

•7 •-x/

best beonly aroundhalfof it;that, is about5% to 7.5%perannum,This rule ofthumb refers to the general trend in thenineties, to be adoptedin the absenceof clear and specificevidence relating to increase in prices. Where there arespecialreasonsfor applyinga higher rate of increase, oranyspt'cific evidence relatingto the actualincreaseinanyspt'cific evidence relatingto the actualincreaseinprices,':hen the increaseto be appliedwoulddependuponthe samthe sam

15.Normally, recourse is • taken tothe mode ofdetermining the market value by providing appropriateescalationover theprovedmarketvalue ofnearbylands inprevious years(as evidenced by sale transactions oracquisitions), where thereisnoevidence of anycontemporaneous sale transactions or acquisitions ofcomparable lands in the neighbourhood.The said methodisreasonablysafe where the. relied-on saletransactions/acquisitionsprecede the subjectacquisitionby only fewyears,^ that is uptofour tofiveyears. Beyondthat itmay beunsafe,3vm if it relatesto neighbouringland. What maybe reiiable standardif the is afew gap only years) maybecomeunsafe and unreliablestandardwhere the is gaplarger, j^or example,for determiningthe marketvalue ofalandac•quired, in 1992, adopting the annual increasemethodwith referenceto sale orin 1970 or acquisition1980may have many pitfalls. This is because, over thecourse(if years, the "rate" of annual increase may itselfundergodrastic change apart from the likelihood ofoccurre)ice of varyingperiods of stagnation in prices orsuddenspurts in prices affecting the very standard ofincrease19.Being niindfulofthe ratio ofthe decisionofthe Apex Court inONGC (supra),I find that the instance of institutional allotment(Ex.PW13/l)of the year 2007* heavily' relied upon• by the' appellantsIwouldnot be aI usefulguide'to determinethe' marketvalue ofthe land in' ''question, as the said allotmentwas made after period of three yearsfrom the date ofacquisitionofthe land in question.It is so said becausethe sale exemplarofthe relevantperiodofthisveryvillagein questionis

LA.App.No. 115/2011& connectedAppealsofVillageBamuoli-;

Page 11 of 15

available/Therefore,the aforesaid instance of allotment of land to thePowerDepartmentof GovernmentofDelhi has been rightlyrejectedbythe ReferenceCourt.I

20.Now w^hat is required to be considered is whether the sale instanceI(Ex.R-1)relieduponby the ReferenceCourtis acomparableinstancec|r, not. Undisputsdly,sale instance^XEx.Rrl:)is of this very villageand is ofOctober,20C-4 whereas the land in question was acquired videNotificationof November, 2004. Evidently, aforesaid sale instanceI(Ex.R-1)is not only relevantbut is comparableas it has not been shown,by the appellantsas to what are the distinguishingfeatureswhich wouldmake itinapplicableto determinethe marketvalueofthe acquiredlands.Finding of theReferenceCourtthat whenthe sale instance(Ex.R-1)wasexhibited no owas raised the claimantsand as section51-bjectionby perAof Landacquisition Act, 1894, •certified copy of registered';documentis-cceptable in evidence/andsince this document has beentenderedin e\idenceby the Respondents,the same can be read againstIthem, remains unimpeachable.21.However,to meet the aforesaidfindingof the ReferenceCourt, itwas submittedby learnedcounselfor the appellantsthat opportunityto•lead rebuttalevidenceto show that sale.instarice(Ex.R-1),is not reliableof bona fide, aa application to lead rebuttal evidence was filed before the1ReferenceCourtwhich was illegallyrejectedvide orderof 25"' August^!•2010and therefore, this matter needs to be remanded back to theReference Court to enable the appellants to 'lead rebuttal evidence todemolishaforesaidsale instance(Ex.R-1).'22.First of all, appellantsoughtto have objectedto the exhibitionofaforesaidsale instance(Ex.R-1).Havingnot done so, appellantshave tcface the legaconsequences. Secondly, even if application of the

LA.App. No. 115/2011& connectedAppealsof VillageBamnoliPage 12 of 15

! Ifor rebuttalevidencewasappellants leading rejectedby:he ReferenceCpur^,nothi:^^had stoppedthem from niovingan applicationfor leadingadditionalevidencein the appeal to lead evidencein orderto demolishthe sale insance (Ex.R-1). Not only this, even during the courseiofhearing,nothingwas ui-gedto showas to how the sale instance(Ex.R-1)'IIS not genuine/reliableor comparable.;23.In thelight of the evidence on record, I am of the consideredopinion thathe ReferenceCourthas rightlyrelieduponthe saleinstanceto determinethe marketvalueofthelands.no(Ex.R-1)acquiredFmdingmentmthe instantof claimantsand one Ifappeals cross-objectionbythem,the same are dismissedwhileleavingthe partiesto beartheirov^costs.24;So far as appeals of the Respondentsare concerned,I find nosubstancein fhem, becausetlie determinationofthe marketvalue oftlieacquiredland by theReferenceCourthas been done whilerelyingupdnthe sale instance (Ex.R-1) produced by the RespondentsthemselvekRegardingdoingawayofthe classificationofthe acquiredland into 'A'block and 'BBlock by the ReferenceCourt is concerned,1find thatthis classificalion has areasonablebasis. That is to say, land witli topsoil andthe lakdwithouttop soil camxotbe putatparas themarketvalueofthe landwiftouttop soilis boundto be lesserthanthemarketvalueofthelandwithtop soil.iI25.Endorsi the differentiationbetween'A'land andng pnce category'B' categoryiand, my esteemed brother Pradeep Nandrajig,J., in arecentdecisioijin LA.App.No.266/2008,titledas JaiSingh&Ors.UnionofIndia&, Ors., renderedon 23"August2011, whilerelyingon' .jhe decisionof the DivisionBench of this court in GajraJSiMghWonofIndia,2006(VI) AD Delhi 13, has heldas under:-L'^.App.No.1)5/2011& connectedAppealsofVillageBamnoli:

Page 13 of 1:5

"56. ip. GajrajSingh'scase (supra), thepricedifferentialworked out was t25,000/-. peracre. Ihave notedkereinabove that the in case acquisition Gajraj Singh'spertaMedto the date 15.11.1996.In GajrajSingh's,case thepricefor Category 'A ' landdeterminedwas ^9,76,121/-per thewasacre andfor Category 'B' land price determined^9,51,121/-per acre and the price^ differentialcomes toabout 2.5% with reference to the price of Category 'A'land.

57.Ihus hold that Gajraj Singh's case should be myguiding star for price differential in the instant cases aswell and thus1holdthat whereverCategory Category'B' andCategory 'C have to he differentiatedonprice, thedifferentiql should be 2.5%. "

26.Consequentially,the findingofthe ReferenceCourtregardingtheA categoryand 'B' categoryland beingsimilarlysituatedhavingsameand because arefor the samepotentialitythey acquired publicpurjDose,cannot be susi:ainedin the lightofthe aforesaidobservations.However,the cl^hn ofthe Union of India, to seek a:doption of the minimumindicative-priceof agriculturalland in'Delhiwhile forgettingthat the-Appellant UOI itselfhas reliedupon the sale instance(Ex.R-1),meritsrejection.I

27.In viewofthe,afore-goingnarration,I find thatno substanceinthe, appeals filed Dy claimantsas well as in cross objectionof one of theclaimantsand the same are dismissed. So fcir as the appeals filed byUnion ofIndiaare concerned,the same are partlyallowedto the extentthat the comipensationawarded by the Reference Court for the 'B]'category of l^nds (as noticed in the Award,of the Land AcquisitionCollector)is reducedfrom^17,45,000peracreto ^17,01,375/-acre.28.Beforepartingthis order,I would like to bring on recordthat tliebrevity of this order, is occasioned by the fact that the impugnedjudgment is v^ell consideredon facts and the law. Therefore,I have

.>A.App.No.115/2011&coinectedAppealsofVillageBamnoli

Pagel4of]15