M/S ACQUAINTED REALTORS LLP ETC. ETC. versus STATE OF HARYANA & OTHERS on 8 April 2021

SUPREME COURT REPORTS

[2021] 3 S.C.R.

AM/S ACQUAINTED REALTORS LLP ETC. ETC.

v.

STATE OF HARYANA & OTHERS

(Civil Appeal Nos. 1330-1332 of 2021)

BAPRIL 08, 2021

[UDAY UMESH LALIT AND VINEET SARAN, JJ.]

Land Acquisition Act, 1894: Compensation – Landagricultural in nature and away from Highway – In the year 2002,in respect of Phases II, III and IV of the Industrial Model Township,CManesar, Gurgaon, acquisition proceedings under s.4 of the Actwere initiated with regard to lands falling in villages NaharpurKasan, Kasan, Bas Kusla, Bas Haria, Dhana and Manesar – HighCourt vide its decision dated 09.03.2018 in Madan Pal III v. State ofHaryana assessed the market value in respect of lands from villagesDNaharpur Kasan, Kasan, Bas Kusla, Bas Haria, and Dhana (coveredby Phases II and III) at Rs.41.40 lakhs per acre; while compensationfor lands from village Manesar (covered by Phase IV) was assessedat Rs.62.10 lakhs per acre – Appeals arising therefrom were decidedby this Court vide its Judgment dated 11.01.2019 as modified byOrder dated 08.02.2019 in Wazir and Another vs. State of HaryanaEi.e., after the decision of the High Court which is presently underappeal – The decision of the High Court in HSIIDC v. Roshan Laland others, which was the basis of the decision in the present matters,had in turn relied upon the assessment made by the High Court inits earlier in Madan Pal III – Since the assessment in Madan Pal IIIFwas scaled down by this Court in Wazir and Another v. State ofHaryana, theoretically, the market value arrived at by the High Courtin Roshan Lal case would be on the higher side – The acquisition inRoshan Lal case was a year before the present acquisition – If thelands in both cases were otherwise identical in material terms, thevaluation found with respect to the former in the year 2004, mustGhave undergone some upward change when the valuation of thelatter set of lands is to be considered for the year 2005 – Although,the decision in Roshan Lal was not challenged by the State, the factremains that the values assessed in that decision were theoreticallyon a higher scale and the landholders, on that score, have receivedHan advantage – In totality of circumstances, the landholders must be held entitled to 8% flat increase over the market value assessedin HSIIDC v. Roshan Lal and others in respect of lands from villageswhich were found to be comparable – The landholders must thereforeget enhancement to the tune of 8% over Rs.43.61 lakhs per acre –They shall also be entitled to all the statutory benefits.

Allowing the appeals, the Court

Conclusion

HELD: 1. Wazir and another vs. State of Haryana hadconsidered the value by annual increase as one of the alternatives.Secondly, the rate adopted in that case was only 8%. The valuationin Wazir and another vs. State of Haryana, by itself, cannottherefore be taken as the basis in preference to what couldpossibly be concluded on the basis of Sale Deeds on record. Thesubmission therefore does not merit acceptance. However, twoaspects of the matter are quite striking and distinguish the instantacquisition from the one that was under consideration in HSIIDCvs. Roshan Lal and others. A) The notification for acquiring thelands for Kondli Manesar Palwal Expressway was issued prior inpoint of time. It is true that according to the record, except forcertain exits, the Expressway would otherwise be unapproachableas stated by Assistant Manager, HSIIDC. However, a dimensiondistinguishing the instant case certainly got added in that, even ifthere was to be no direct approach to the acquired lands from theExpressway, in terms of potential, the lands in the instant casedefinitely got closer to development. B) Secondly, the acquisitionin the case of HSIIDC vs. Roshan Lal and others was a year beforethe present acquisition. If the lands in both cases were otherwiseidentical in material terms, the valuation found with respect tothe former in the year 2004, must have undergone some upwardchange when the valuation of the latter set of lands is to beconsidered for the year 2005. [Paras 11, 12, 13][388-F-H; 389-A-D]

Wazir and Another v. State of Haryana (2019) 13 SCC101 : [2019] 2 SCR 571 – referred to.

2. The lands in the instant case were agricultural in natureand away from the Highway. At the same time, it cannot be ignoredthat the values arrived at in HSIIDC vs. Roshan Lal and others (inthe light of subsequent decision in Wazir and another vs. State of A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

AHaryana) were themselves on the higher side. Although, thedecision in HSIIDC vs. Roshan Lal and others was not challengedby the State, the fact remains that the values assessed is thatdecision were theoretically on a higher scale and the landholders,on that score, have received an advantage. In the totality ofcircumstances, the landholders must be held entitled to 8% flatBincrease over the market value assessed in HSIIDC vs. RoshanLal and others. in respect of lands from villages which were foundto be comparable. The landholders must therefore getenhancement to the tune of 8% over Rs.43,61,400 per acre. Theyshall also be entitled to all the statutory benefits. [Paras 14,C15][390-C-F]

General Manager, Oil and Natural Gas CorporationLimited v. Rameshbhai Jivanbhai Patel and Another(2008) 14 SCC 745 : [2008] 11 SCR 927; Madan PalIII v. State of Haryana (2018) SCC Online P & H 2871D– referred to.

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 1330-1332 of 2021.

From the Judgment and Order dated 01.06.2018 of the High CourtFof Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in RFA Nos. 2119, 2542 and 2543of 2014 (O&M).

With

GCivil Appeal Nos.1347-1355 of 2021, 1393-1400 of 2021, 1401 of2021, 1402 of 2021, 1403 of 2021, 1404 of 2021, 1405 of 2021, 1408 of2021, 1333-1335 of 2021, 1336-1341 of 2021, 1342-1346 of 2021, 1356-1362 of 2021, 1363-1364 of 2021, 1365-1366 of 2021, 1367-1372 of 2021,1373-1375 of 2021, 1376-1388 of 2021, 1389-1392 of 2021, 1406 of 2021,1407 of 2021, 1409-1436 of 2021, 1501-1502 of 2021, 1503-1507 of 2021Hand 1437-1500 of 2021.

Narender Hooda, Rameshwar Singh Malik, Sushil Kr. Jain, Sr.Advs., S.P. Laler, B.K. Bagri, Abhishek Yadav, Devesh Kumar Tripathi,Abhay Pratap, Ms. Manju Jetley, Siddharth Mittal, Rajendra Beniwal,Prabhat Kumar, Ranbir Singh Yadav, Puran Mal Saini, Ms. Anzu K.Varkey, S.P. Goutam, Anil Mittal, Jitesh Malik, Vibhuti Sushant Gupta,Ram Naresh Yadav, Vikas Verma, Yadav Narender Singh, Puneet Jain,Ms. Anisha Jain, R.K. Verma, Nitin Jain, Ms. Sangita Tahbildar,Dr. (Mrs.) Vipin Gupta, Rakesh Kumar Yadav, Rameshwar Prasad Goyal,Gagan Gupta, Jasbir Singh Malik (for Ms. Usha Nandini V.), Dr. ShivaSharma, Daya Krishan Sharma, Vikas Verma, Vinod Goyal, SwetankShantanu, Pratap Shanker, Sanjiv Kr. Choudhary, Ms. Shilpi Shrivastav,Ms. Vanshaja Shukla, Parmanand Yadav, Ahuja Pethia, Suresh Kr.Kaushik, Daramvir Sharma, Ravi Panwar, B. Rajesh, Narender KumarVerma, Advs. for the appearing parties.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by UDAY UMESH LALIT, J.

1. Delay condoned. Leave granted in all matters.

2. These appeals challenge the judgment and order date 01.06.2018passed by the High Court[1] in RFA No.384 of 2013 (O&M) [Tej Singhand another v. State of Haryana and others], based on which the individualappeals were disposed of.

3. The facts leading to the instant appeals, in brief, are as under:-

A) The proceedings for acquisition of lands were initiated videNotification dated 27.09.2005 issued under Section 4 of the Act[2] for thepurpose of setting up Industrial Model Township, Phase-VI, Manesar,Gurgaon for the development of an integrated complex for industrial,commercial, recreational and other public utilities.

B) The aforesaid Notification was followed by Declaration dated02.06.2006 issued under Section 6 of the Act. The lands sought to beacquired, admeasured 465 acres 5 Kanals 7 Marlas, the details of whichas tabulated by the High Court were:- 1 The High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh 2 The Land Acquisition Act, 1894

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

A

B

C

D

E

G

H

C) By Awards dated 24.01.2007, the Land Acquisition Collectorassessed the market value of the lands at the rate of Rs.12.50 lakhs peracre.

D) References initiated at the instance of land-holders werediscussed by the High Court in its decision under challenge as follows:

“Different reference courts at Gurugram dealt with the matter atdifferent points of time and the first award in question was dated18.12.2010, pertaining to Village Dhana, wherein a sum ofRs.46,07,890/- per acre was awarded as market value of the landwhile deciding 2 reference petitions, which is subject matter ofRFA No.2453 of 2011 titled HSIIDC v. Ram Niwas and others.Similarly, on 04.09.2012, 26 reference petitions were decided forthe said village, awarding the same amount of compensation, whichis subject matter of RFA No.384 of 2013 titled Tej Singh v. Stateof Haryana and others. On 04.12.2012, another award was passedfor the said village, wherein also, same amount of compensationwas given, which is subject matter of RFA No.2874 of 2013 titledMarwan and others v. State of Haryana and others and whichwas followed by another award dated 22.03.2013, which is subjectmatter in RFA No.402 of 2016 titled Sunita Devi v. State ofHaryana and others. On 09.05.2013, another award was passedwherein also, same amount of compensation was granted, whichis subject matter of RFA No.6369 of 2013 titled Ranbir Singh v.State of Haryana.

However, vide award dated 07.10.2013, Reference Courtgranted a sum of Rs.50,70,359/- which is subject matter of RFANo.7913 of 2013 titled M/s Asylum Estate Pvt. Ltd. v. State ofHaryana and others, whereas vide award dated 23.11.2013, whichis subject matter of RFA No.2091 of 2014 titled Siri Chand andothers v. State of Haryana and others, a sum of Rs.46,07,890/- which had been granted earlier, was maintained. Another awardwas passed on 17.03.2015, which is subject matter in RFA No.3743of 2015 titled Udey Singh and others v. State of Haryana andothers for village Dhana wherein also Rs.46,07,890/- wasawarded.

For Village Kasan, vide award dated 03.10.2012, which issubject matter of RFA No.2086 of 2013 titled Lal Singh v. Stateof Haryana and others, a sum of Rs.50,70,359/- was awardedwhile deciding 24 reference petitions.

For land falling in Village Bas Huria, vide award dated09.11.2011, which is subject matter of RFA No.3426 of 2014 titledSarup and another v. State of Haryana and others, a sum ofRs.46,07,890/- was granted. Reference Court vide award dated10.11.2012, in RFA No.1971 of 2013 titled Sohan Lal and othersv. State of Haryana and others, has also granted samecompensation. Vide another award dated 29.04.2013, for VillageBas Huria, which is subject matter of RFA No.7119 of 2013 titledHSIIDC and others v. Chunni Lal and others, same amount ofcompensation was assessed. Thereafter, vide award passed on01.09.2015, Reference Court, which is subject matter in RFANo.16 of 2016 titled Jai Pal Singh and others v. State of Haryanaand others, fixed the compensation at the same amount.

Another Reference Court on 10.11.2012, while deciding 32reference petitions, for Village Bas Lambi, which is subject matterof RFA No.958 of 2013 titlted Balbir v. State of Haryana andothers, granted compensation of Rs.46,07,890/- whereby 829kanals, 18 marlas of land was acquired.

For village Bas Khusla, while deciding 54 reference petitionson 28.09.2013, a sum of Rs.68,32,893/- was granted by applyingthe cumulative method, which is subject matter of RFA No.4004of 2014 titled HSIIDC v. Amar Pal and others. Similarly, RFANo.4424 of 2015 titled Ishwar @ State of Haryana and others,deals with award dated 01.10.2014 wherein also, Rs.68,32,893/-was granted.

While assessing the market value, vide award dated18.12.20110, for village Dhana, for the first time, the ReferenceCourt kept in mind compensation awarded in HSIIDC v. Pran A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

Sukh (2010) 11 SCC 175 whereby a sum of Rs.20 lacs has beenawarded as compensation for the notification dated 15.11.1994,for setting up the Industrial Model Township, Phase-I, Manesar.It was further noticed that for notification dated 07.03.2002 ofVillage Dhana, besides land of Village Kasan, Bas Kusla, BasHuria, which was also for the development of Phase-III, oneReference Court had awarded a sum of Rs.28,15,849/- by givingincrease of 12% on Rs.15 lacs, as had been assessed by thisCourt. Since the Apex Court had enhanced the value @ Rs.20lacs in Pran Sukh’s case (supra), the same was relied upon bygranting 12% increase for the time-gap of 10 years, 10 monthsand 12 days between the 2 notifications dated 15.11.1994 and theone in question dated 27.09.2005, to assess the market value ofRs.46,07,890/-. The apportionment claimed, as such, was alsodecided in favour of the claimants and the claim of GramPanchayat was denied.

A

B

C

DHowever, for the same Village Dhana, vide award dated07.10.2013, another Reference Court relied upon the award dated03.10.2012 for Village Kasan, which is subject matter of RFANo.2086 of 2013, to grant higher compensation of Rs.50,70,359/-, on the ground that it was pertaining to the same notification andthe public purpose was the same, i.e., for completing theEinfrastructural facilities and other public utilities such as roads,water supply, sewerage, electrification etc.

D

Thus, it is apparent that for the same acquisition,Rs.46,07,890/- and Rs.50,70,359/- have been awarded for VillageDhana and similarly, for Village Kasan also, Rs.50,70,359/- hasbeen awarded. However, Village Bas Khusla, Rs.68,32,893/- wasawarded, without the Reference Court having, in any manner,recorded a finding, as such, that the lands situated in those villageswere superior or were better placed and without making anyreference to the site-plans in question.”

F

G

E) For facility, the brief details of the orders in References andthe amounts awarded as compensation are tabulated:- A

B

C

D

Thus, except for cases at serial Nos.6,9,15 and 16, the marketvalue was consistently fixed at Rs.46.07 lakhs per acre.

E

F) The acquiring body, namely, HSIIDC[3] as well as land-holdersapproached the High Court by filing 114 Appeals and 19 cross Objections.The High Court framed the following questions for consideration:

“(i) Whether cumulative increase was liable to be granted on thebasis of an Award for the notification dated 15.11.1994 for theacquisition dated 27.09.2005 where there was a gap of 10 yearsand 10 months between two notifications and whether the Awardsare sustainable on that account; F

(i) Whether the sale deed dated 16.08.2004 in favour ofM/s Conway Developers Ltd., which was subject matter ofGconsideration in a bunch of appeals lead case in which was RFANo.3381 of 2013 ‘HSIIDC v. Roshan Lal and others’ decided on25.05.2018 are liable to be taken into consideration pertaining tovillage Naurangpur which was for Phase-V of the IMT Manesar, H

3 Haryana State Industrial and Infrastructure Development Corporation 382SUPREME COURT REPORTS

Awhereas the present acquisition is for the Transport Hub, which isPhase-IV of the IMT Manesar.

(ii) What is the relevant market value of the land situated in VillagesDhana, Kasan, Bas Huria, Bas Khulsa and Bas Lambi as on thedate of Section 4 notification dated 27.09.2005.”

B

Relying on the decision in General Manager, Oil and NaturalGas Corporation Limited v. Rameshbhai Jivanbhai Patel andanother[4] the High Court answered the first question against the land-holders. While dealing with the evidence on record the High Court reliedupon its decision rendered on 25.05.2018 in HSIIDC v. Roshan LalCand others. It was found in that case that sale deed dated 17.08.2003[Ext.P-13] was the most appropriate sale instance, based on whichvaluation at Rs.48,46,000/- per acre was arrived at for lands from VillagesNaurangpur and Lakhnoula falling on the National Highway whereasthe lands falling inside and away from the Highway were subjected to acut of 10% and the market value for lands falling in the villages Shikohpur,DNawada Fatehpur and Naharpur Kasan was arrived at Rs.43,61,400/-per acre.

Finding that the lands in the instant case were comparable withthe lands from Villages Shikohpur, Nawada Fatehpur and Naharpur Kasan,the High Court fixed market value in respect of the lands concerningEpresent acquisition at Rs.43,61,400/-. The relevant discussion was asunder:-

“50. The argument raised by Mr. Shailender Jain, Sr. Advocatethat the sale deed dated 16.08.2004, in favour of M/s ConwayDevelopers Pvt. Ltd. which fall in Village Naurangpur, whereinFland was sold for Rs.57,60,000/- per acre should be the relevantsale exemplar and should be taken into consideration to fix themarket value of the present 5 villages, though attractive at thefirst blush, but is not liable to be accepted. While deciding thecases of adjoining village, i.e. Naurangpur, Shikohpur, NawadaGFatehpur, Naharpur Kasan and Lakhnoula, wherein land had beenacquired for Phase-II of the Industrial Model township, forindustrial, commercial, recreational and other public utilities, thesaid sale deed had been taken into consideration for the notificationdated 17.09.2004 in RFA No.3381 of 2013 – HSIDC now HSIIDC

H4 (2008) 14 SCC 745

v. Roshan Lal and others, decided on 25.05.2018. The marketvalue of the 2 villages, namely, Lakhnoula and Naurangpur hasbeen assessed at Rs.48,46,000/- since they were falling on theHighway for the notification dated 17.09.2004. The land falling inthe interior and away from the Highway, in Villages NaharpurKasan, Nawada Fatehpur and Shikohpur were givenRs.43,61,400/- per acre. Even in the said case, it was noticed thatthe location of the said sale deed had not been brought on recordon the siteplans and from the evidence, it would be clear that itwas falling on the main road on the National Highway No.8 andabutting the same and was in favour of a Developer. Accordingly,the sale deed was taken into consideration for assessing the marketvalue of the said villges, especially Naurangpur and Lakhnoula,as such, which were abutting the main highway also, as per thesite-plan in question. The market value, as such was found that itwas hovering around Rs.57 lacs, as such. However on the basisof sake deed dated 17.08.2003 (Ext.P13), in the said set of cases,whereby land measuring 8 kanals 8 marlas wa sold in favour ofM/s Reliance Industries Ltd. in Village Lakhnoula with the frontageof 75.8 meters on the National Highway No.8 on its southernside, as per the description given in the site plan, the value was ,thus, worked out at Rs.50,90,238/- per acre by granting 12%enhancement Rs.6,10,828/-, keeping in view the developmentwhich was taking place in the said area. The per acre value hadthus worked out at Rs.57,01,066/- and thereafter, 15% cut hadbeen applied to assess the market value at Rs.48,45,907/- (roundedof to Rs.48,46,000/-) for the land falling on the highway for VillageNaurangpur and Lakhnoula. The lands falling inside and awayfrom the Highway were assessed by granting another 10% cutand accordingly, for land falling in Village Shikohpur, NawadaFatehpur and Naharpur Kasan, the amount was further reducedto Rs.43,61,400/-.

51. The pleadings and evidence have already been discussed indetail in the above paras and it is amply clear that the land inquestion is located at a considerable distance ranging from 7 to 10kms from National Highway aNo.8 and therefore, cannot begranted the benefits of the land which is abutting the Highwayand closure to the main town of Gurgaon since Naurangpur is AB

C

D

EF

G

H

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

situated ahead of Manesar towards Gurgaon. The argument thatthe market value of the land adjoining villages could also be takeninto consideration while assessing the market value, would notapply in the present case, as a perusal of the site plans would goon to show that there are several revenue estates between thelands which have been acquired of he 5 villages and villageNaurangpur. The site plan (Ext.P222 and Ext.R1, in RFA No.384of 2013 – Tej Singh’s case) would show that the land is on thefag end of the development which is taking place on the Highwayand away from the National Highway. Village Naharpur Kasan,Lakhnoula and Maneswar’s revenue estates would come inbetween the lands of the acquired villags. The distance thoughpleaded in several cases that it was close to the National HighwayNo.8, has been clarified time and again by the appellant-Corporation that it is ranging between 7-10 kms from the NationalHighway. In such circumstances the sale deed in favour ofM/s Conway Developers Pvt. Ltd. could not be safe exemplarfor fixing the market value and, therefore, the said judgment isrejected.

52. The issue of assessing the market value would, thus, necessarilyhave to be on the basis of a closer sale deeds of the villages inquestion or of the adjoining villages. As noticed earlier, in RFANo.3381 of 2013 titled HSIDC now HSIIDC v. Roshan Lal andothers, the sale deed in favour of M/s Reliance Industries waskept in mind for assessing the market value which fell in therevenue estate of Village Lakhnoula. The land acquired in VillageNaharpur Kasan, market value was accordingly, fixed atRs.43,61,400/- after giving the necessary cut. The said award, assuch, can be treated as relevant piece of evidence to assess themarket value of he acquired land also since Naharpur Kasan isthe adjoining village. The difference between the two notificationsin question was for a period of one year as the earlier notificationwas dated 17.09.2004 whereas the present notification is dated27.09.2005. It has already been noticed on an earlier occasion inMaqdan Pal-III (supra) that major developments was taking placein the area in the form of industry being encouraged and the bignames had already come in like Maruti Suzuki Ltd. The 10%increase, thus, can be safely granted which would enhance themarket value to Rs.47,96,540/- per acre. However, the said benefit, as such, is also not liable to be granted, keeping in view the locationof the land which is deeper inside and would not fetch the samevalue though a period of one year might have gone by which thesubsequent Section 4 notification had been issued. Accordingly,this Court is of the opinion that the market value for the lands ofthe 5 villages in question, namely, Dhana, Kasan, Bas Huria, BasLambi and Bas Khusla is liable to be assessed at the same amountas what was granted to Naharpur Kasan, @ Rs.43,61,400/- peracre along with situatory benefits.”

Going by the location, the High Court found that the lands involvedin the instant acquisition were identical to the lands from VillagesShikohpur, Nawada Fatehabad and Naharpur Kasan. It relied on siteplan Ext.P22. It also considered the difference of about a year betweentwo notifications i.e. to say the notification dated 17.09.2004 under Section4 of the Act in the earlier case and notification dated 27.09.2005 in thepresent case. It was observed that logically 10% increase could safelybe granted. However, considering the location of the lands and beingsatisfied that there would not be any difference in the value despitelapse of a year, it assessed the market value for the lands in question atRs.43,61,400/- per acre.

The appeals preferred by HSIIDC[3] were thus allowed while thechallenge raised by the landholders was rejected.

4. Being aggrieved, these appeals have been preferred by thelandholders. No appeal has been preferred by the State or the AcquiringBody and thus, the scope of instant appeals is limited to consider whetherthe landholders are entitled to any enhancement in compensation.

5. It was submitted on behalf of the land holders: - (a) The lands in the instant appeals abutted the Kundli-Manesar-Palwal Expressway, in respect of which notification under Section4 of the Act was issued on 11.01.2005 i.e. even prior to the initiationof acquisition in the instant case. The lands in the instant case,therefore, had huge potential; (b) Sale deed dated 28.04.2004 (Ext.P27 in the instant case) waswrongly rejected by the High Court. This sale deed pertained toan extent of 12 acres of land which was sold at the rate of Rs.1.13crores per acre; A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

SUPREME COURT REPORTS

A(c) Even post acquisition sale deeds, namely, Ext.P11 to P14 andP28 to P30 were erroneously rejected by the High Court and thecompensation for the lands in the instant case could easily havebeen arrived at by applying de-escalation on the post-acquisitionsale deeds; and B(d) Going by the valuation arrived at by this Court in Wazir andanother v. State of Haryana[5], cumulative annual increase at 12%per annum could appropriately have been granted.

6. It was submitted on behalf of the State inter alia that the HighCourt was right in relying upon Sale Deed dated 17.08.2003 to arrive atthe valuation in respect of villages Shikohpur, Nawada Fatehpur andCNaharpur Kasan and thereafter adopting same valuation for the landsinvolved in the instant case.

7. It must be stated here at the outset that in respect of Phases II,III and IV of theIndustrial Model Township, Manesar, Gurgaon, acquisitionproceedings were initiated with regard to lands falling in villages NaharpurDKasan, Kasan, Bas Kusla, Bas Haria, Dhana and Manesar by issuingNotifications dated 06.03.2002, 07.03.2002 and 26.02.2002 under Section4 of the Act. The High Court vide its decision dated 09.03.2018 in MadanPal III vs. State of Haryana[6] assessed the market value in respect oflands from villages Naharpur Kasan, Kasan, Bas Kusla, Bas Haria, andEDhana (covered by Phases II and III) at Rs.41.40 lakhs per acre; whilecompensation for lands from village Manesar (covered by Phase IV)was assessed at Rs.62.10 lakhs per acre. The appeals arising therefromwere decided by this Court vide its Judgment dated 11.01.2019[7] asmodified by Order dated 08.02.2019[8] in Civil Appeal Nos.264-270 of2019 and other connected matters (Wazir and Another vs. State ofFHaryana[5]) i.e., after the decision of the High Court which is presentlyunder appeal. The relevant operative directions issued by this Courtwere:- “32. In the circumstances, we direct:

32.1 In respect of lands under acquisition from Villages NaharpurGKasan and Kasan the market value shall be Rs.39,54,666 peracre. Additionally, all statutory benefits would be payable.

5 (2019) 13 SCC 1016 2018 SCC Online P & H 28717 (2019) 13 SCC 101H8 (2019) 13 SCC 123

32.2 In respect of lands under acquisition from Villages Bas Kusla,Bas Haria and Dhana the market value shall be Rs.29,77,333 peracre. Additionally, all statutory benefits would be payable.

32.3 In respect of lands from Village Manesar the market valueshall be Rs.59,31,999 lakhs per acre. Additionally, all statutorybenefits would be payable.”

Pertinently, the decision of the High Court in HSIIDC v. RoshanLal and others, which was the basis of the decision in the presentmatters, had in turn relied upon the assessment made by the High Courtin its earlier decision dated 09.03.2018 in Madan Pal III v. State ofHaryana[6]. Since the assessment in Madan Pal III vs. State ofHaryana[6 ]was scaled down by this Court in Wazir and Another vs.State of Haryana[5], theoretically, the market value arrived at by theHigh Court in HSIIDC v. Roshan Lal and others would be on thehigher side.

8. We, however proceed to consider the material on record to seewhether the landholders are right in their contentions and are entitled toenhanced compensation.

9. Sale Deed dated 28.04.2004 (Exhibit P-27 in the instant case)was considered by the High Court as under:- “The sale deed dated 28.04.2004 by M/s Gillette Indiawhereby land measuring 12.08125 acres was sold in NaharpurKasan which is developed portion of the village with a industrialunit running on it, which would be clear from Schedule-II andtherefore, the value of the said sale deed in favour of Lotto Finance& Investment for a sum of Rs.13.62 crores, would not be correctexemplar, which could be taken into consideration to assess themarket value.”

Schedule II to the Sale Deed shows that apart from the landdescribed in Schedule I, constructed area, machinery including canteen,kitchen, offices, 7 air handling units, air colling units, centrifugal chillersof 400 tons each, LAN networking with extensive cabling, fire fightingimplements also formed part of the price.

This document was therefore rightly ruled out.

10. Post-acquisition sale deeds have, at times, been relied uponby Courts. But in a case where pre-acquisition sale instances are AB

C

D

EF

G

H

Aotherwise found to be adequate and appropriate, post-acquisitioninstances, by themselves, cannot outweigh and discard such pre-acquisition sale instances. The pre-acquisition pointer in the form of SaleDeed dated 17.08.2003 in favour of Reliance Industries Limited withadequate frontage on National Highway was rightly found to beappropriate. No fault can be found with such exercise.B11. While answering question No.1 against the landholders, theHigh Court relied upon following observations in the decision in ONGCLtd.[4]

“15. Normally, recourse is taken to the mode of determining theCmarket value by providing appropriate escalation over the provedmarket value of nearby lands in previous years (as evidenced bysale transactions or acquisitions), where there is no evidence ofany contemporaneous sale transactions or acquisitions ofcomparable lands in the neighbourhood. The said method isreasonably safe where the relied-on sale transactions/acquisitionsDprecede the subject acquisition by only a few years, that is, up tofour to five years. Beyond that it may be unsafe, even if it relatesto a neighbouring land. What may be a reliable standard if the gapis of only a few years, may become unsafe and unreliable standardwhere the gap is larger. For example, for determining the marketEvalue of a land acquired in 1992, adopting the annual increasemethod with reference to a sale or acquisition in 1970 or 1980may have many pitfalls. This is because, over the course of years,the “rate” of annual increase may itself undergo drastic changeapart from the likelihood of occurrence of varying periods ofstagnation in prices or sudden spurts in prices affecting the veryFstandard of increase.”

Wazir and another vs. State of Haryana[5 ]had considered thevalue by annual increase as one of the alternatives. Secondly, the rateadopted in that case was only 8%. The valuation in Wazir and anothervs. State of Haryana[5], by itself, cannot therefore be taken as the basisGin preference to what could possibly be concluded on the basis of SaleDeeds on record. The submission therefore does not merit acceptance.

12. However, two aspects of the matter are quite striking anddistinguish the instant acquisition from the one that was under considerationin HSIIDC vs. Roshan Lal and others.H

A) The notification for acquiring the lands for Kondli ManesarPalwal Expressway was issued prior in point of time. It is truethat according to the record, except for certain exits, theExpressway would otherwise be unapproachable as stated byPW3 Ranbir Singh Yadav, Assistant Manager, HSIIDC. However,a dimension distinguishing the instant case certainly got added inthat, even if there was to be no direct approach to the acquiredlands from the Expressway, in terms of potential, the lands in theinstant case definitely got closer to development.

B) Secondly, the acquisition in the case of HSIIDC vs. RoshanLal and others was a year before the present acquisition. If thelands in both cases were otherwise identical in material terms, thevaluation found with respect to the former in the year 2004, musthave undergone some upward change when the valuation of thelatter set of lands is to be considered for the year 2005.

13. The High Court was right to a certain extent that there wasnothing on record to indicate such upward movement. At this stage, wemay refer to the principles laid down by this Court in ONGC Ltd.[4]:- “13. Primarily, the increase in land prices depends on four factors:situation of the land, nature of development in surrounding area,availability of land for development in the area, and the demandfor land in the area. In rural areas, unless there is any prospect ofdevelopment in the vicinity, increase in prices would be slow, steadyand gradual, without any sudden spurts or jumps. On the otherhand, in urban or semi-urban areas, where the development isfaster, where the demand for land is high and where there isconstruction activity all around, the escalation in market price isat a much higher rate, as compared to rural areas. In some pocketsin big cities, due to rapid development and high demand for land,the escalations in prices have touched even 30% to 50% or moreper year, during the nineties.

14. On the other extreme, in remote rural areas where there wasno chance of any development and hardly any buyers, the pricesstagnated for years or rose marginally at a nominal rate of 1% or2% per annum. There is thus a significant difference in increasesin market value of lands in urban/semi-urban areas and increasesin market value of lands in the rural areas. Therefore, if the A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

Aincrease in market value in urban/semi-urban areas is about 10%to 15% per annum, the corresponding increases in rural areaswould at 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 thenineties, to be adopted in the absence of clear and specific evidencerelating to increase in prices. Where there are special reasons forBapplying a higher rate of increase, or any specific evidence relatingto the actual increase in prices, then the increase to be appliedwould depend upon the same.”

14. Guided by the rule of thumb stated in said decision, and evenwhile considering that the lands in the instant case were agricultural inCnature and away from the Highway, in our considered view, two aspectsdetailed hereinabove, definitely weigh in favour of the landholders. Atthe same time, it cannot be ignored that the values arrived at in HSIIDCvs. Roshan Lal and others (in the light of subsequent decision in Wazirand another vs. State of Haryana[5]) were themselves on the higherDside. Although, the decision in HSIIDC vs. Roshan Lal and otherswas not challenged by the State, the fact remains that the values assessedis that decision were theoretically on a higher scale and the landholders,on that score, have received an advantage.

15. In the totality of circumstances, in our view, the landholdersEmust be held entitled to 8% flat increase over the market value assessedin HSIIDC vs. Roshan Lal and others. in respect of lands from villageswhich were found to be comparable. The landholders must thereforeget enhancement to the tune of 8% over Rs.43,61,400 per acre that is tosay Rs.47,10,312 per acre (rounded of to Rs.47,10,500 per acre).Needless to say that they shall also be entitled to all the statutory benefits.F

16. These appeals are allowed to the extent indicated above,without any order as to costs.

G

Devika Gujral

Appeals allowed.

H