VED & ANR. versus STATE OF HARYANA & ANR. on 8 April 2021

VED & ANR.

v.

STATE OF HARYANA & ANR.

(Civil Appeal No. 1158 of 2021)

APRIL 08, 2021

[UDAY UMESH LALIT AND VINEET SARAN, JJ.]

Land Acquisition Act, 1894: Enhancement of compensation– Acquisition of land for setting up Industrial Model Township,Phase V, Manesar for development of integrated complex forindustrial, commercial, recreational and other public utilities – Awardof compensation – Land-owners sought enhancement ofcompensation – High Court considered Exhibit P13 concerning anextent of land admeasuring 8 Kanals and 8 Marlas in the limits ofVillage Lakhnoula and two Sale Deeds (Exhibits P24 and P25) – Italso considered the assessment of market value made by it in respectof acquisition pertaining to Phases II, III and IV in its decision inMadan Pal III vs. State of Haryana and finally arrived at the marketvalue for the villages in question – The assessment in Madan Pal IIIvs. State of Haryana which was the foundation of the decision of theHigh Court in the instant case, was scaled down by this Court inWazir and Another vs. State of Haryana – Therefore, theoretically,the market value arrived at by the High Court would be on thehigher side – The Sale Deeds i.e. Exhibits P-13, P-24 and P-25, theextent of lands involved therein, their location and other featureswere considered by the High Court in right perspective – Nointerference called for.

Dismissing the appeals, the Court

HELD: 1. With regard to Phases II, III and IV of theIndustrial Model Township, Manesar, Gurgaon, acquisitionproceedings were initiated in respect of lands falling in villagesNaharpur Kasan, Kasan, Bas Kusla, Bas Haria, Dhana andManesar by issuing Notifications dated 06.03.2002, 07.03.2002and 26.02.2002 under Section 4 of the Act. The High Court videits decision dated 09.03.2018 in Madan Pal III vs. State of Haryana,assessed the market value in respect of lands from villagesNaharpur Kasan, Kasan, Bas Kusla, Bas Haria, and Dhana

351

A

B

CDEF

GH

A(covered by Phases II and III) at Rs.41.40 lakhs per acre; whilethe value for lands from village Manesar (covered by Phase IV)was assessed at Rs.62.10 lakhs per acre. The appeals arisingtherefrom were decided by this Court vide its Judgment dated11.01.2019 as modified by Order dated 08.02.2019 in Civil AppealNos.264-270 of 2019 and other connected matters (Wazir andBAnother vs. State of Haryana) i.e., after the decision of the HighCourt which is presently under appeal. The relevant operativedirections issued by this Court were:- In respect of lands underacquisition from Villages Naharpur Kasan and Kasan the marketvalue shall be Rs.39,54,666 per acre. Additionally, all statutoryCbenefits would be payable. In respect of lands under acquisitionfrom Villages Bas Kusla, Bas Haria and Dhana the market valueshall be Rs.29,77,333 per acre. Additionally, all statutory benefitswould be payable. In respect of lands from Village Manesar themarket value shall be Rs.59,31,999 lakhs per acre. Additionally,all statutory benefits would be payable.” [Para 4][359-G-H; 360-DA-E]

2. In the instant case, the High Court considered ExhibitP13 concerning an extent of land admeasuring 8 Kanals and 8Marlas in the limits of Village Lakhnoula and two Sale Deeds inrespect of M/s Conway Developers Private Limited. (ExhibitsEP24 and P25). It also considered the assessment of market valuemade by it in respect of acquisition pertaining to Phases II, IIIand IV in its decision in Madan Pal III vs. State of Haryana andfinally arrived at the market value for the villages in question. Asa matter of fact, the assessment in Madan Pal III vs. State ofFHaryana which was the foundation of the decision of the HighCourt in the present case, was scaled down by this Court in Wazirand Another vs. State of Haryana. Therefore, theoretically, themarket value arrived at by the High Court would be on the higherside. [Paras 7, 8][361-D-F]GMadan Pal III v. State of Haryana (2018) SCC OnLineP & H 2871 – referred to.

3. Exhibit P-20 Sale Deed was rightly rejected by theReference Court and the reasoning in that behalf is quite correct.The other Sale Deeds i.e. Exhibits P-13, P-24 and P-25, the extentHof lands involved therein, their location and other features were considered by the High Court in right perspective and the mattercalls for no interference. [Para 9][361-G]

General Manager, Oil and Natural Gas CorporationLimited v. Rameshbhai Jivanbhai Patel and Another(2008) 14 SCC 745 : [2008] 11 SCR 92; Wazir andAnother v. State of Haryana (2019) 13 SCC 101 :[2019] 2 SCR 571 – referred to.

Case Law Reference

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1158 of2021.

From the Judgment and Order dated 25.05.2018 of the High Courtof Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in RFA No.1804 of 2014.

With

Civil Appeal Nos. 1159 of 2021, 1160-1197 of 2021, 1198-1210 of2021, 1211-1218 of 2021, 1219-1227 of 2021, 1228 of 2021, 1229 of2021, 1230 of 2021, 1231 of 2021, 1232-1233 of 2021, 1234-1240 of2021, 1241-1242 of 2021, 1243-1248 of 2021, 1249-1250 of 2021, 1251of 2021, 1252-1253 of 2021, 1254 of 2021, 1255-1272 of 2021, 1273-1278 of 2021, 1279-1280 of 2021, 1281 of 2021, 1282 of 2021, 1283-1287 of 2021, 1288-1302 of 2021, 1303 of 2021, 1304 of 2021, 1305 of2021, 1306 of 2021, 1307 of 2021, 1308 of 2021, 1309-1310 of 2021,1311 of 2021, 1312 of 2021, 1313-1316 of 2021 and 1317 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, Swetank A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

AShantanu, 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, Vibhuti Sushant Gupta, Advs. for the appearing parties.

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

1. Delay condoned. Permission to file Special Leave Petitionsgranted. Leave to appeal granted in all matters. These appeals challengethe Judgment and Order dated 25.05.2018 passed by the High Court[1];based on which the individual appeals were disposed of.C

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

A) The proceedings for acquisition of lands were initiated videNotification dated 17.09.2004 issued under Section 4 read with Section17 (2) (c) of the Act[2] for the purpose of setting up Industrial ModelDTownship, Phase-V, Manesar, Gurgaon for the development of anintegrated complex for industrial, commercial, recreational and other publicutilities.

B) The aforesaid Notification was followed by Declaration dated27.10.2004 issued under Section 6 of the Act. The land covered by theDeclaration admeasured 956 acres 5 Kanals 18 Marlas, the details ofEwhich as tabulated by the High Court were:-

C) By Awards dated 09.03.2006, the Land Acquisition Collectorassessed the market value of the lands at the rate of Rs.12.50 lakhs peracre.

F

G

1 High Court of Punjab & Haryana At Chandigarh in RFA No.3381 of 2013 (HSIDCnow HSIIDC vs. Roshan Lal and Others) and other connected appeals.H2 The Land Acquisition Act, 1894

D) While dealing with References preferred by the landholders,the Reference Court assessed the compensation at the rate ofRs.50,43,315/- per acre in respect of the villages other than villageManesar. Exhibit P-20 Sale Deed, relied upon by the landholders, wasconsidered by the Reference Court as under:-

“… Sale deed Ex.P20 pertains to village Naharpur Kasan andsale deed Ex.P24 pertains to village Naurangpur. I have gonethrough the sale deed Ex.P20. In the considered opinion of thisCourt the sale deed Ex.p20 does not depict the true market valueof the land. 96 kanals 13 marlas of land was sold for a total saleconsideration of Rs.13,62,00,000/- on 28.04.2004. The price peracre comes to Rs.1.07 crores. A close scrutiny of the sale deedshows that the sale deed was not only with regard to land. Thereis an assertion in the sale deed Ex.P20 that the first party hadgood and marketable title to the industrial land and industrial buildingwhich consisted of basement, ground floor, first floor and secondfloor and was desirous of selling its rights, title, interest and liensin the industrial land and the building, structures and machineryimbedded in the earth. Two schedules were also attached withthe sale deeds. Schedule-I gives the area of the land and Schedule-II gives the constructed area, machinery etc which includescanteen, kitchen, offices, 7 air handling units, air cooling units,centrifugal chillers comprising of 400 tons each, LAN networkingwith extensive cabling, fire fighting structure etc. The price was,therefore, for the entire plant and not for the land alone.”

E) The Acquiring Body, namely, HSIDC[3] (now known asHSIIDC[4]) as well as some landholders, being aggrieved, filed appeals inthe High Court.

F) The High Court assessed the market value in respect of landsfalling in villages Naurangpur and Lakhnoula at Rs.48,46,000/- per acre;and in respect of lands falling in villages Nawada Fatehpur, NaharpurKasan and Shikohpur the market value was assessed at Rs.43,61,400/-per acre. It relied on Sale Deed Exhibit P-13, where the land was havingfrontage on the National Highway No.8 and, after granting 12%enhancement it arrived at the figure of Rs.57,01,066/-, whereafter 15%cut was applied to assess the market value at Rs.48,45,907 (rounded of 3 Haryana State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd.

4 Haryana State Industrial and Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd.

A

BC

D

E

F

G

H

Ato Rs.48,46,000/-) for the lands from villages Naurangpur and Lakhnoulafalling on the Highway. Since the lands from villages Shikohpur, NawadaFatehpur and Naharpur were away from the Highway, a further cut of10% was adopted to arrive at the figure of Rs.43,61,400/- per acre forthose three villages. The High Court relied upon the assessment madeby it in Madan Pal III vs. State of Haryana[5].B

The relevant discussion was:-

“71. The other instance which can be kept into mind is Ex.P13dated 27.08.2003 for 8 kanals 8 marlas (slightly over one acre)which was executed in favour of M/s Reliance Industries LimitedCfalling in the limits of Lakhnoula. The frontage was on the NationalHighway No.8 of southern side itself as per description of the plotand the sale deed in question is more than a year prior in point oftime. Keeping in view the growth factor and the potentiality ofthe land in question, which has been discussed in the evidenceabove that the IMT Manesar was being developed since the yearD1994 in the vicinity and market value had already been assessed@ Rs.20 lakhs per acre at that point of time and for the year 2002the market value had been assessed @ `41.40 lakhs per acre foradjoining village Naharpur Kasan, the pressure of building activitywas immense and pace of progress was rapid. The industries hadEbeen built up and exempted from acquisition which has been shownin blue colour in the site plans. The distance to Manesar was only2 Km away, where the main activities were taking place. Gurgaoncity was only 11 Kms situated on the other side and the overallpicture that can be drawn up was that there was certainable trendof development from both sides towards the land in question. TheFsite plan showed that the land was situated in more advantageouslocation and the potentiality was immense.

72. Keeping in view these circumstances, the enhancement of12% would be required on the sale deed Ex.P13 for which thevalue of land which was Rs.50,90,238/-. The 12% benefit isG‘6,10,828/- and per acre value works out to Rs.57,01,066/- peracre. As noticed Ex.P13 is of one acre of land and, therefore, thesmallness of the plot is not applicable in the facts andcircumstances, as one acre of land falling on the highway cannotbe said to be a small portion of land. The description also showsH5 (2018) SCC OnLine P&H 2871

that it had a 75.8 meter frontage on the highway as per thedimensions given and, accordingly, this Court is of the opinion thata 15% cut for development would be appropriate in the facts andcircumstances, which is liable to be put to assess the market value,which comes to Rs.8,15,159/-. Thus, reducing it from ‘57,01,066/-, the market value works out to Rs.48,45,907/- per acre (roundedoff to Rs.48,46,000/- ) for the land falling in village Naurangpurand village Lakhnoula,which are abutting the highway. The saleexemplar being of higher value is, thus, being preferred over Ex.P7,which is not falling on the Highway also.

73. In similar circumstances in ‘Chakas Vs. State of Punjab andothers’ 2011 (10) SCR 618, when the land was being acquiredfor setting up of industry and infrastructure, it was held that thededuction of 50% of value towards the development charges wasnot justified by the Reference Court. It was noticed that the landwas to be used for the industrial unit for which it was being acquiredand, therefore, 10% reduction was upheld.

74. It is pertinent to notice here also that acquisition was for mixedpurpose and the Corporation is going to recover the costs as suchfrom the eventual allottees and, therefore, 15% reduction wouldbe justified in the facts and circumstances.

75. In ‘Kasturi Vs. State of Haryana’ 2003 (1) SCC 354, the20% cut was applied when 84.23 acres was acquired fordevelopment of residential and commercial area in Bhiwani. Theargument that there should be no reduction was repelled by noticingthat the sale exemplar was of 3 kanals of land located on the mainroad itself and resultantly the 20% cut was applied by the SingleJudge and which had been upheld by the Division Bench was alsokept intact.

76. As noticed that the land which was acquired in the year 2002is further away and closer to Manesar and away from Gurgaon,the market value of which has been assessed @ Rs.41.40 peracre for village Naharpur Kasan and other villages of the compactblock in Madan Pal (III)[5] (supra) on 09.03.2018. The earlierdevelopment having taken place in and around village Manesar, itbeing the hub of development and the IMT Manesar coming aroundit on the first account way back in the year 1994, the value of land A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

of village Manesar and its surrounding were a relevant factor,whereby the industry concerned on an earlier occasion, namely,M/s Kohli Holding Pvt. Ltd. has been given a higher rate.Therefore, though the present land might be falling closer toGurgaon as such, but away from the hub of development which istaking place at Manesar cannot be equated with samecompensation, which has been given to M/s Kohli Holdings Pvt.Ltd and the landowners of village Manesar. The acquisition is of2½ years later and, therefore, keeping in view the said factorsalso in mind, compensation for the land falling closer to the townof Gurgaon would be liable to be granted which was granted inthe earlier acquisition for the land further away and, therefore,the assessment which has been made @ ‘48,45,907/- per acre(rounding it off to Rs.48,46,000/- per acre) would be a muchappropriate market value.

77. For the land of other villages i.e. Nawada Fatehpur, NaharpurKasan, Shikohpur an other 10% is liable to be reduced on the saidcompensation assessed and, therefore, the market value isassessed @ Rs.43,61,317/- per acre (rounding it off toRs.43,61,400/- per acre) for the said villages. From the evidenceof witnesses discussed above, it would be clear that villageNawada Fatehpur and Shikohpur are at a distance from thehighway. Nawada Fatehpur is at a distance of 4-5 Kms andShikohpur is situated where the land was acquired for CRPF andalso situated behind Naurangpur and not abutting the NationalHighway.

78. The evidence which is on record upon which one can safelyfall back, in the present set of cases is in the form of the 2 saledeeds in M/s Conway Developers Ltd. (Exts. P24 & P25) in oneset of cases, which show that the market value wasRs.57,60,000/- per acre in village Naurangpur. But as noticed above,the location has not been specifically brought to the notice of thisCourt, though an application for additional evidence has been filed,bringing on record the site-plans. One witness PW has deposedthat it is abutting the main Highway and appropriate cut has, thus,to be fixed upon the same and especially since the land wastowards Gurgaon, as noticed and abutting the Highway. Thus, if a15% cut is given on the same, on account of locational advantage, it would work out Rs.8,64,000/- and the market rate would beRs.48,96,000/- per acre which is around the same price as is beingfixed @ Rs.48,46,000/- per acre.”

G) The operative part of the directions issued by the High Courtwas: - “79. Resultantly, the appeals of the HSIIDC are allowed, whereasthe appeals of the landowners for further enhancement and cross-objections for enhancement which are filed are dismissed and theawards passed by the Reference Courts are, accordingly, modified.

(i) The market value of the land falling in two villages, namely,Naurangpur and Lakhnoula is assessed @ Rs.48,46,000/- peracre alongwith all statutory benefits on 17.09.2004.

(ii) For the land falling in villages Nawada Fatehpur, NaharpurKasan and Shikohpur, the market value is fixed @Rs.43,61,400/- per acre along with all statutory benefits on17.09.2004.

(iii) The directions of the Apex Court in the case of Pran Sukh[6](supra) will also be adhered to while disbursing the balanceamount of compensation.

(iv) Where appeals have been filed by the land owners whichwere beyond period of limitation and applications have beenfiled for condoning the delay with a condition that the landowners will not be entitled for the interest during the said period,the Executive Court shall ensure that the amounts are calculatedand disbursed, keeping in the view the said condition whichhave been passed in the case of each individual land owner.”

3. 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.

4. It must be stated at the outset that with regard to Phases II, IIIand IV of theIndustrial Model Township, Manesar, Gurgaon, acquisitionproceedings were initiated in respect of lands falling in villages NaharpurKasan, Kasan, Bas Kusla, Bas Haria, Dhana and Manesar by issuing 6 (2010) 11 SCC 175

A

B

C

D

EF

G

H

ANotifications 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[5], assessed the market value in respect oflands from villages Naharpur Kasan, Kasan, Bas Kusla, Bas Haria, andDhana (covered by Phases II and III) at Rs.41.40 lakhs per acre; whilethe value for lands from village Manesar (covered by Phase IV) wasBassessed at Rs.62.10 lakhs per acre. The appeals arising therefrom weredecided by this Court vide its Judgment dated 11.01.2019[7] as modifiedby Order dated 08.02.2019[8] in Civil Appeal Nos.264-270 of 2019 andother connected matters (Wazir and Another vs. State of Haryana[7])i.e., after the decision of the High Court which is presently under appeal.CThe relevant operative directions issued by this Court were:- “32. In the circumstances, we direct:

32.1 In respect of lands under acquisition from Villages NaharpurKasan and Kasan the market value shall be Rs.39,54,666 peracre. Additionally, all statutory benefits would be payable.D32.2 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 valueEshall be Rs.59,31,999 lakhs per acre. Additionally, all statutorybenefits would be payable.”

5. In these appeals, it was submitted on behalf of the landholders that:-

a) The lands from villages Naurangpur, Lakhnoula and ShikohpurFbeing abutting National Highway No.8 towards Delhi and closer toGurgaon than the lands from villages like Manesar, the lands from thesevillages were on a better footing.

b) The lands had immense potentiality for residential andcommercial purposes, being surrounded by many reputed Industrial Units,GResorts, Hotels and Farm houses.

c) Certain Sale Deeds including Exhibit P.20 executed on28.04.2004 showed value greater than what was assessed by the HighCourt.

7 (2019) 13 SCC 101H8 (2019) 13 SCC 123

d) Even if, the valuation determined in Wazir and Another vs.State of Haryana[7] be taken as the base, after conferring cumulativeincrease for a period of 2 ½ years, the appropriate valuation for landsfrom village Naharpur Kasan would be:-

6. On the other hand, it was submitted by the State that the valuationarrived at and the discussion by the High Court on the point did not callfor any interference.

7. In the instant case, the High Court considered Exhibit P13concerning an extent of land admeasuring 8 Kanals and 8 Marlas in thelimits of Village Lakhnoula and two Sale Deeds in respect of M/s ConwayDevelopers Private Limited. (Exhibits P24 and P25). It also consideredthe assessment of market value made by it in respect of acquisitionpertaining to Phases II, III and IV in its decision in Madan Pal III vs.State of Haryana[5] and finally arrived at the market value for the villagesin question.

8. As a matter of fact, the assessment in Madan Pal III vs.State of Haryana[5 ]which was the foundation of the decision of the HighCourt in the present case, was scaled down by this Court in Wazir andAnother vs. State of Haryana[7]. Therefore, theoretically, the marketvalue arrived at by the High Court would be on the higher side.

9. Even then we proceed to consider the evidence placed on recordto see if the landholders are right in seeking enhancement.

Exhibit P-20 Sale Deed was rightly rejected by the ReferenceCourt and the reasoning in that behalf, as quoted hereinabove is quitecorrect. The other Sale Deeds i.e. Exhibits P-13, P-24 and P-25, theextent of lands involved therein, their location and other features wereconsidered by the High Court in right perspective and the matter callsfor no interference.

That leaves us to consider whether by adopting the method ofannual increase over the values determined in connection with acquisition A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

Afor Phases II, III and IV any advantage can still be conferred upon thelandholders.

10. In General Manager, Oil and Natural Gas CorporationLimited vs. Rameshbhai Jivanbhai Patel and Another[9], this Courtdealt with the issue of grant of annual increase and expressed caution inBfollowing words.:- “15. Normally, recourse is taken to the mode of determining themarket 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 ofCany contemporaneous sale transactions or acquisitions ofcomparable lands in the neighbourhood. The said method isreasonably safe where the relied-on sale transactions/acquisitionsprecede 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 gapDis of only a few years, may become unsafe and unreliable standardwhere the gap is larger. For example, for determining the marketvalue 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,Ethe “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 verystandard of increase.”

11. It is true that the process of determining the value by annualFincrease was considered as one of the alternatives in Wazir and Anothervs. State of Haryana[7]. But in that case, three methods including onerelating to cumulative annual increase were considered and that methodwhich led to the highest valuation was adopted. But the law laid down inONGC Ltd.[9] is quite clear.

GIn case we go by the method of cumulative annual increase itwould mean that cumulative increase over the valuation in Wazir andAnother vs. State of Haryana[7] must displace the valuation based onSale Deed, which is normally the safest method.

12. In the circumstances, the decision of the High Court which ispresently under appeal calls for no interference and these appeals aredismissed without any order as to costs.

Devika Gujral

Appeals dismissed.

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H