RAVINDER KUMAR GOEL versus THE STATE OF HARYANA & ORS. on 15 February 2023

SUPREME COURT REPORTS

[2023] 3 S.C.R.

A

RAVINDER KUMAR GOEL

v.

THE STATE OF HARYANA & ORS.

(Civil Appeal No. 1173 of 2023)

BFEBRUARY 15, 2023

[A. S. BOPANNA AND HIMA KOHLI, JJ.]

Land Acquisition Act, 1894 : ss. 4, 6, 17(2) – Land Acquisition– Enhancement of compensation – On facts, land of the appellantsacquired for the construction of Express Highway – Though landCacquired on large scale, however, the appellants were land ownersof small extent of lands – Award passed and the market value fixedat Rs. 12,50,000/- per acre which was enhanced by the ReferenceCourt to Rs. 43,17,841 and then by the High Court to Rs. 62,11,700/- per acre – Thereafter, on remand of the matter to the ReferenceDCourt, on re-appreciation of the evidence and materials availableon record, the Reference Court determined the market value of theacquired lands at Rs.22,00,754/-, however, the High Court reducedthe market value to Rs.14,52,010/- per acre – On appeal, held:High Court not justified in merely relying on the circular providing for the floor rates despite other evidence being available on recordE– Reasoning assigned by the Reference Court in discarding the saleexemplars relied upon by the State Industrial and InfrastructureDevelopment Corporation since they depict the market value of theland which is lower than the amount awarded by the Collector, notjustified – When large extent of lands are acquired and if the saleFexemplar, also for the large extent is available on record it wouldbe safer to rely on the same if they are comparable transactions –Sale instances of smaller extents cannot be ignored – It can berelied upon subject to appropriate deduction being provided towardsdevelopment charges – Since small extents of land belonging to theland losers, having non-agricultural potential in an urban areaGwas notified for acquisition, the sale exemplar dated 07.12.2004can be considered as comparable – Reference Court justified inreckoning the same – Hence, it would be appropriate to reckon thededuction towards development cost at 25 per cent of the valuetaken into consideration under the document Ex. PX datedH07.12.2004 – Thus, the market value would be Rs.25,20,000/- per

acre, payable with all statutory benefits as compensation for thelands acquired – Furthermore, if any excess amount has beenreceived by any of the land losers than the extent of the compensationdetermined herein, the excess amount, in any event, is recoverable.

Partly allowing the appeals, the Court

HELD : 1.1 The Officer-cum-Land Acquisition Collector atthe first instance while passing the award dated 10.05.2006 keptin view the circular dated 03.11.2005 issued by the Collectorproviding for the floor rates at Rs.12,50,000/-per acre and has,accordingly, determined the compensation. When the parties werebefore this Court in the first round of litigation, this Court havingtaken note of the governing factors as to the determination ofmarket value had remanded the matter for fresh considerationthough the circular relating to the floor rates was also availableto the benefit of this Court to be noticed and applied if need be.In that view, in the light of the said circular, without relying onthe same, this Court had directed that the evidence be tenderedby the parties before the Reference Court so as to make suchevidence the basis for fresh determination to be made. Despitethe same, the High Court in the instant round has merely reliedon the circular providing for the floor rates despite other evidencebeing available on record. Such determination is thus, not justified.From the records, it is pointed out that the sale exemplars werebrought on record to aid the Court to determine the market value,the consideration of which was required to be made to arrive atan appropriate market value. [Para 9][922-F-H; 923-A-B]

1.2. The Reference Court before appreciating the evidence,has kept in view the parameters laid down by this Court whileconsidering a reference for the purpose of determining the marketvalue of the acquired lands to arrive at the just compensation.The Reference Court kept in view that the sale instances of smallpieces of land cannot be ignored while determining thecompensation for a large extent of land acquired. The rule ofdeduction on development charges would not be uniformlyapplicable was also taken into consideration. It is in that light,the Reference Court has placed reliance on the document at Ex.PXdated 07.12.2004 relied upon by the land losers. Under the said A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

Adocument, an extent of 5 Marlas was sold in Sultanpur i.e. thearea which is the subject matter of these appeals, for the saleconsideration of Rs.1,05,000/-which would amount toRs.33,60,000/- per acre. On reckoning the said value of land, theReference Court deducted 35 per cent of the same towardsdevelopment charges and thereafter added the escalation for 35Bdays being the difference of the period between the date of thesaid sale deed and the date of the preliminary notification. It ison the said basis that the market value of Rs. 22,00,754/-peracre was arrived at by the Reference Court. [Paras 10, 11][923- C, F-H; 924-A]C

1.3. From the judgment of the Reference Court it is notedthat the sale exemplars which were relied upon by the respondent-HSIIDC at Ex.R5/R12, Ex.R6, Ex.R9, Ex. R13 to Ex.R16 werediscarded since they depict the market value of the land which islower than the amount awarded by the Collector. To that extent,Dthe reason assigned by the Reference Court is not justified. Thedocuments would have to be taken into consideration, to decideas to whether the lands are comparable and, on the determination,if the conclusion is that they are comparable but the market valuedepicted is lesser than what is awarded by the SLAO and if thereis no other document to indicate a higher market value, it wouldEbe open for the Reference Court to confirm the award of theLAO being more beneficial to the land losers. [Para 12][924-B-C]

1.4. The High Court was not justified in merely relying onthe circular fixing the floor rates when other evidence wasFavailable on the record pursuant to the remand made, it isnecessary for the Court to take note as to whether the ReferenceCourt had committed an error in not relying on the sale exemplarsproduced by the respondents without analysing the comparability.When large extent of lands are acquired and if the sale exemplar,Galso for the large extent is available on record it would be saferto rely on the same if they are comparable transactions. The saleinstances of smaller extents cannot be ignored. The saleexemplars for smaller extent can be relied upon subject toappropriate deduction being provided towards developmentcharges. [Para 13][924-D-F]H

1.5 The extent to which each of the appellants is claimingcompensation is a smaller extent. In that background, if thedocuments relied on by the respondents are noted, the largestextent sold is under Ex.R16 being 32 Kanals and 16 Marlas,while the least being under Ex.R8 measuring 3 Kanals and 8Marlas. While approving the procedure for placing reliance onthe sale deeds of earlier sale transactions as exemplars, this Courthas emphasized that the basis for the same is that the value undersuch exemplars would represent the sale consideration agreedupon between a willing seller and a willing purchaser and thereforewould represent the true market value. If the said concept iskept in perspective, one cannot loose sight of the fact that whenlarge extent of agricultural land is sold under a document and ifthe land is to be used for agricultural purpose, the price agreedthereto would be based on the nature of the land and the purposefor which it is put to use. In cases, where the large extent ofagricultural land belonging to a single owner is acquired, it wouldno doubt be safe to rely on such sale exemplars of large extents,more particularly, in circumstances where the land which isclassified as agricultural land is also used for agricultural purposes.In such circumstances, to arrive at the market value dependingon the nature of the cultivation, the capitalisation method byapplying the multiplier to the crop pattern and price derived canbe adopted and the market value be determined or determinethe market value based on such sale deeds which are comparableexemplars. [Paras 14, 15][924-G-H; 925-A-E]

1.6. The difficulty arises when a person holds a smallerextent of land which is classified as agricultural land but wouldhave lost its character due to non-cultivation and urbanizationwhen such land is more eminent and fit to be used for non-agricultural purposes. It is in that circumstance, such land thoughclassified as agricultural will have to be treated as a land havingnon-agricultural potential more particularly for urban use. In thatlight, in appropriate cases depending on the location and theextent of land held by each of the land losers who is a part of thesame acquisition, is required to be kept in view, while applyingthe yardstick to reckon the appropriate exemplar and arrive atthe ultimate conclusion. There can be no strait jacket formulathat when the sale deeds for the sale of large extent are available ABCDE

F

GH

Aand large extent of lands are acquired that alone should bereckoned as the exemplar. What is material is its comparability,which would depend on case to case basis and that is for theCourt to analyze based on the evidence available on record. [Para16][925-E-H]

1.7. The lands in issue are within the boundaries of theBMunicipal Corporation. The very award dated 10.05.2006 passedby the LAO records that no crops are standing on the land.Therefore, in that circumstance when smaller extent of land isavailable, the same would be used for urban development andnot for agricultural purpose. Hence relying on Ex. R5 to R16Cwhich are sale deeds of a large extent of agricultural land, wouldnot be justified unless there was further evidence brought onrecord to demonstrate that the nature of the lands sold under thesaid sale deeds and the lands notified are comparable to eachother. In that view, though the reason assigned by the ReferenceDCourt is not appropriate on that aspect, the ultimate conclusionto eschew the said documents would stand justified. [Para 17][926-B-C]

1.8. If that be the position, from the documents which wererelied upon by the appellants- land losers, the most appropriatedocument to be relied upon was Ex.PX dated 07.12.2004 since itEwas earlier to the notification dated 11.01.2005 under s. 4, readwith 17 and in close proximity thereto, which has been rightlydone by the Reference Court. Since small extents of landbelonging to the land losers, having non-agricultural potential inan urban area was notified for acquisition, the said sale exemplarFdated 07.12.2004 can be considered as comparable. TheReference Court was, therefore, justified in reckoning the same.Since the two dates are in close proximity, further addition of theescalation value for 35 days was not justified. The escalation ofthat nature is normally to be taken if there are no documents within close proximity to the date of notification and a documentGof the larger time gap is the only available document to be takeninto consideration, in which case, the escalation for a longer timegap is required to be given. [Para 18][926-D-F]1.9. The land acquired is for the construction of a newExpressway which would require not just laying of the roads butHalso providing several amenities through the highway and also creation of service roads, flyovers, underpass to townships acrosssuch highway. Land is also to be left as a divider to bifurcate thetwo -way roads. Therefore, it would not be justified in saying thatno development cost at all would be incurred. Hence, taking allaspects into consideration and also taking into consideration thatthe sale exemplar for a smaller extent is being relied on for thereasons noted, in the facts and circumstance arising herein, itwould be appropriate to reckon the deduction towardsdevelopment cost at 25 per cent of the value taken intoconsideration under the document Ex. PX dated 07.12.2004.Therefore, from the amount of Rs.33,60,000/-which is the valuetherein, a sum of Rs.8,40,000/-being 25 per cent is to be deducted.Hence the market value to be determined in the instant casewould be Rs.25,20,000/-per acre, which would be payable with allstatutory benefits as compensation for the lands acquired. [Para21][927-G-H; 928-A-B]

1.10. In the first round of the case, a higher rate ofcompensation was determined and before the judgment was setaside and remanded, in some of the cases the execution was leviedand the amount was paid to the land losers. In view of thedetermination of the compensation at a lower rate in the presentround of proceedings, the excess amount is being recovered bythe respondents. The appellants contended that if this Courtdetermines the market value at a lesser rate than what has beenpaid to some of the appellants, such of those land losers whohave received the amount, be protected against recovery whereasthe respondents opposed such a request. Having considered thisaspect of the matter, it would not be possible for this Court tocreate two sets of land losers who are otherwise similarly placed,in respect of the same acquisition process after havingdetermined the market value at a particular rate which isapplicable to all of them. Therefore, it is needless to mentionthat if any excess amount has been received by any of the landlosers than the extent of the compensation determined herein,the excess amount, in any event, is recoverable. It cannot belost sight of the fact that such a situation has arisen due to theearlier orders of the Court determining the compensation.Though it is not a mistake of the Court, it has led to the presentsituation due to the act of the Court. It would therefore be ABC

DEFGH

ABC

DEFGH

[2023] 3 S.C.R.

Aappropriate to invoke the principle of ‘actus curiae neminemgravabit’ so that both parties are not prejudiced to the extentpossible. Taking note that the amount which has been receivedwill be invested or utilised, to enable repayment after makingarrangement, the balance is directed to be refunded, back inthree half-yearly instalments, free of interest. However, if theBamount is not refunded within the time period as provided above,the same shall thereafter carry interest at 9% p.a. and therespondent-HSIIDC would be entitled to recover the same,including the right to make recovery as arrears of land revenue.[Paras 22, 23][928-C-H; 929-A]

C

1.11. The impugned judgment passed by the High Court isset aside. The judgment passed by the Additional District Judgein LAC Case No. 1426 and connected references is restored andmodified. In modification, it is ordered that the market value ofthe acquired land is Rs.25,20,000/- per acre. The same shall beDpayable with statutory benefits and the costs incurred throughoutby the appellants. [Para 24][929-B-C]

Surender Singh Vs. State of Haryana & Ors. (2018) 3SCC 278 : [2018] 1 SCR 581; State of Gujarat vs.Kakhot SinghJi VajesinghJi Vaghela [1968] 3 SCR 692;EAtma Singh (Dead) through Lrs. and Ors. vs. State ofHaryana and Anr. (2008) 2 SCC 568 : [2007] (12) SCR1120; C.R. Nagaraja Shetty (2) vs. Special LandAcquisition Officer and Estate Officer and Anr. (2009)11 SCC 75 : [2009] 2 SCR 1092; Piyara Singh & Anr.vs.State of Haryana & Ors. Etc. (2017) 2 SCALE 323;FJAG Mahender & Anr. Vs. State of Haryana & Ors.Dated 21.09.2017 Civil Appeal No.15702/2017 arisingout of SLP (C) No.16063 of 2016; Haryana StateAgricultural Market Board & Anr. vs. Krishan Kumar& Ors. (2011) 15 SCC 297; Sabhia Mohammed YusufGAbdul Hamid Mulla (Dead) by Lrs. & Ors. vs. SpecialLand Acquisition Officer & Ors. (2012) 7 SCC 595 –referred to.

Case Law Reference

[2018] 1 SCR 581H

referred to

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.1173 of2023.

From the Judgment and Order dated 07.10.2021 of the High Courtof Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in RFA No.848 of 2021.

C

With

Civil appeal nos.1176, 1178, 1177, 1182-1210, 1179-1181, 1174-1175, 1217-1220, 1211-1216 and 1221-1222 of 2023.

Siddharth Mittal, Ms. Shilpa G. Mittal, Kshitiz Chauhan, SahilAmarnath, Jitesh Malik, Budh Deo Prasad, Abhaya Nath Das, N DKaushik, Satish Kumar, Varun Punia, Devashish Bharuka, Abhijeet Singh,Ms. Sarvshree, Dr. Ajay Kumar, Kaushal Yadav, Nandlal Kumar Mishra,Shafik Ahmed, Ms. Yashoda Katiyar, Aditya Kaushik, Pramod Kumar,Vaibhav Niti, Ms. Madhavi Agrawal, Divyanshu Agrawal, Vibhuti SushantGupta, Narender Kumar Verma, Anshuman Ashok, Ms. AdviteeyaSharma, Gagan Gupta, Himanshu Sharma, Ram Niwas Sharma, Mrs.Aditi Sharma, Nitin Sharma, Lokesh Solanki, Arun Kumar, Vinay Kumar,Prateek Bajaj, Rohit Jaiswal, Advs. for the Appellant.

D

E

Alok Sangwan, Sr. A.A.G., Sumit Kumar Sharma, Apoorv Yadav,Vipul Dahiya, Rajat Sangwan, Samar Vijay Singh, Dr. Monika Gusain,Advs. for the Respondents.

F

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

A. S. BOPANNA, J.

1. The irony in all these cases is that the appellants are land loserswho have been divested from their land either fully or in part to constructan Express Highway over such land for the benefit of others to travelfast but the process to compensate them with a just and fair quantum ofmoney instead of being on the fast track, has been tardy. It is a couple ofyears short of two decades from the date of the preliminary notification G

H

Aand the appellants are still litigating to receive what is rightfully due tothem.

2. These appeals even otherwise have a chequered history. Theappellants are before this Court for the second time. The lands whichwere owned by the appellants formed a part of the lands that wereBnotified under Section 4 read with Section 17 (2) of the Land AcquisitionAct, 1894 (for short ‘Act, 1894’) by the Haryana Government IndustriesDepartment. The preliminary notification was issued on 11.01.2005 andthe declaration under Section 6 of Act, 1894 was made on 31.05.2005.The purpose for which the lands were acquired is for the construction ofExpress Highway Phase VII connecting National Highway No.1, 10, 8Cand 2 in village Sultanpur, Sub-Tehsil Farukh Nagar, Tehsil, and DistrictGurugram. The total extent of land notified for the project was 798 Kanalsand 2 Marlas of which, the appellants’ lands are also included.

3. The award was passed by the District RevenueOfficer-cum-Land Acquisition Collector (for short ‘LAO’), Gurgaon onD10.05.2006. The market value was fixed at Rs.12,50,000/- per acre forall kinds of lands as per the rates of the lands supplied by the Collector,Gurugram through the letter dated 03.11.2005. The land losers includingthe appellants had sought reference under Section 18 of Act, 1894. TheReference Court, through its judgment dated 27.02.2012, afterEconsideration had enhanced the market value to Rs.43,17,841/- per acre.The High Court had an occasion to consider the correctness of the samein appeals filed by both the parties before it. The High Court, onconsideration, had through its judgment dated 05.02.2016 enhanced themarket value to Rs.62,11,700/- per acre.

F4. The land losers as also the State of Haryana were before thisCourt assailing the common judgment dated 05.02.2016 passed by theHigh Court. This Court through its judgment dated 25.01.2018 in thecase titled as Surender Singh Vs. State of Haryana & Ors. (2018) 3SCC 278, remanded all the cases to the Reference Court and the partieswere permitted to lead further evidence whereupon the Reference CourtGwas required to take a fresh decision in the matter.

5. Accordingly, the parties had tendered evidence and exhibitedthe sale instances as exemplars. The Reference Court on re-appreciationof the evidence and materials available on record has through its judgmentand award dated 10.01.2020, determined the market value of the acquiredHlands at Rs.22,00,754/- per acre. The parties being aggrieved, were before the High Court. The Haryana State Industrial and InfrastructureDevelopment Corporation Ltd. & Ors. (for short ‘HSIIDC’) had assailedthe quantum of market value determined as excessive, while the landlosers had sought further enhancement of the market value. The HighCourt, through its common judgment dated 07.10.2021 has modified thejudgment of the Reference Court and reduced the market value toRs.14,52,010/- per acre. The land losers being aggrieved by the sameare before this Court in these appeals seeking enhancement of the marketvalue in respect of the acquired lands.

6. In the above background, we have heard all the learned counselfor the appellants as also the learned counsel for the respondent-HSIIDCand perused the appeal papers.

7. The gist of the contention on behalf of the land losers is that thelands which are the subject matter of these appeals are situated inSultanpur which is within the urban agglomeration. As such, though thelands were depicted as agricultural lands, in fact, the said lands havenon-agricultural potential, more particularly the lands are urbanized landsbeing located within the urban area. In that view, it is contended that themarket value cannot be determined by either considering the land asagricultural land or by applying the yardstick which is applicable to largetracts of agricultural land. It is contended that though the compositenotification to acquire the lands consists of 798 Kanals 2 Marlas of land,insofar as the appellants are concerned, they are land owners of smallextent of lands which were to be used as urban land for purposes otherthan agriculture, and therefore, the market value as determined by theHigh Court on applying the floor rates fixed by the Government, wouldnot be justified. It is their further contention that on the matter beingremanded to the Reference Court, evidence had been adduced whereinsale exemplars were relied on. It is contended that the Reference Courthaving taken into consideration all aspects of the matter had in factrightly relied on the sale deed dated 07.12.2004 which was marked asEx.PX. Having done so, the only error committed by the ReferenceCourt is to deduct 35 per cent of the value towards development chargesinasmuch as in the instant case, the question of deducting developmentcharges would not be justified as the entire acquired land has been utilizedfor the purpose of constructing roads. Hence it is contended that theentire amount, being the sale consideration in the said sale deed dated07.12.2004 is to be reckoned and the same be determined as the marketvalue to quantify the compensation.

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

A8. The gist of the contention put forth by the learned counsel forthe beneficiary of the acquisition, namely HSIIDC is that the ReferenceCourt was not justified in placing reliance on the document at Ex.PX,dated 07.12.2004. The said document related to the purchase of a smallextent as compared to the vast extent of 798 Kanals 2 Marlas of landwhich was acquired. Hence it does not represent the true value of theBacquired lands. It is the further contention that on the other hand, theHSIIDC had relied on, as many as nine sale exemplars between theperiod 23.07.2004 and 25.11.2005 wherein the larger extent of agriculturalland had been sold and the value per acre in all the said instances islesser than the floor rate which had been taken into consideration. ThoughCthe LAO had determined the market value at Rs.12,50,000/- based onthe same, the High Court taking into consideration that there was timegap, has adopted the same and added the escalation for the period betweenthe date of the circular indicating the floor rates and the date of thenotification. It is contended that the High Court having thus assignedappropriate reasons has determined the market value and awarded justDcompensation. Therefore, the judgment does not call for interference, isthe submission.

9. In the light of the rival contentions, keeping in view that theonly question herein is to determine the appropriate market value for theacquired lands, the well-settled yardsticks are to be kept in view and aEdecision is to be taken as to whether the High Court was justified ininterfering with the manner of consideration made by the ReferenceCourt and as to whether the High Court was correct in adopting theamount as indicated in the circular providing for the floor rates for fixingthe market value in the teeth of the other documents which were available

Fon record. In this regard, it is noted that the LAO at the first instancewhile passing the award dated 10.05.2006 has in fact, kept in view thecircular dated 03.11.2005 issued by the Collector providing for the floorrates at Rs.12,50,000/- per acre and has, accordingly, determined thecompensation. As narrated earlier, when the parties were before this Court in the first round of litigation in the case titled Surender SinghGVs. State of Haryana & Ors. (supra), this Court having taken note ofthe governing factors as to the determination of market value hadremanded the matter for fresh consideration though the circular relatingto the floor rates was also available to the benefit of this Court to benoticed and applied if need be. In that view, in the light of the said circular,Hwithout relying on the same, this Court had directed that the evidence be tendered by the parties before the Reference Court so as to make suchevidence the basis for fresh determination to be made. Despite the same,the High Court in the present round has merely relied on the circularproviding for the floor rates despite other evidence being available onrecord. Such determination is therefore not justified. From the records,it is pointed out that as contended on behalf of the parties, the saleexemplars were brought on record to aid the Court to determine themarket value, the consideration of which was required to be made toarrive at an appropriate market value.

10. While adverting to this aspect of the matter what is necessaryto be noted is that the Reference Court before appreciating the evidence,has kept in view the parameters laid down by this Court while consideringa reference for the purpose of determining the market value of theacquired lands to arrive at the just compensation. Since the sale exemplarshad been placed by the rival parties before the Reference Court, inorder to take the same into consideration, the Reference Court has infact taken note of the decision of this Court in State of Gujarat vs.Kakhot SinghJi VajesinghJi Vaghela (1968) 3 SCR 692. This Courthad enunciated the principle that the price agreed between a willingseller and a willing purchaser would be the price which is generallyprevailing in the market in respect of the lands having similar advantageswhich can be the basis to determine the market value of acquired landsif such sale instances are brought on record.

11. Further, the Reference Court had also kept in view the decisionof this Court in Atma Singh (Dead) through Lrs. and Ors. vs. State ofHaryana and Anr. (2008) 2 SCC 568 wherein it is held that the saleinstances of small pieces of land cannot be ignored while determiningthe compensation for a large extent of land acquired. The rule of deductionon development charges would not be uniformly applicable was alsotaken into consideration. It is in that light, the Reference Court has placedreliance on the document at Ex.PX dated 07.12.2004 relied upon by theland losers. Under the said document, an extent of 5 Marlas was sold inSultanpur i.e. the area which is the subject matter of these appeals, forthe sale consideration of Rs.1,05,000/- which would amount toRs.33,60,000/- per acre. On reckoning the said value of land, theReference Court deducted 35 per cent of the same towards developmentcharges and thereafter added the escalation for 35 days being thedifference of the period between the date of the said sale deed and the A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

Adate of the preliminary notification. It is on the said basis that the marketvalue of Rs. 22,00,754/- per acre was arrived at by the Reference Court.

12. From the judgment of the Reference Court it is noted that thesale exemplars which were relied upon by the respondent-HSIIDC atEx.R5/R12, Ex.R6, Ex.R9, Ex.R13 to Ex.R16 were discarded since theyBdepict the market value of the land which is lower than the amountawarded by the Collector. To that extent, the reason assigned by theReference Court is not justified. The documents would have to be takeninto consideration, to decide as to whether the lands are comparableand, on the determination, if the conclusion is that they are comparablebut the market value depicted is lesser than what is awarded by theCSLAO and if there is no other document to indicate a higher marketvalue, it would be open for the Reference Court to confirm the award ofthe LAO being more beneficial to the land losers.

13. Therefore, since we have already indicated that the High Courtwas not justified in merely relying on the circular fixing the floor ratesDwhen other evidence was available on the record pursuant to the remandmade, it is necessary for us to take note as to whether the ReferenceCourt had committed an error in not relying on the sale exemplarsproduced by the respondents without analysing the comparability. Theposition of law is well settled that when large extent of lands are acquiredEand if the sale exemplar, also for the large extent is available on recordit would be safer to rely on the same if they are comparable transactions.However, as already noted above, this Court in Atma Singh (supra) hasalso held that the sale instances of smaller extents cannot be ignored.Further, this Court has reiterated in many cases that the sale exemplarsfor smaller extent can be relied upon subject to appropriate deductionFbeing provided towards development charges.

14. In the instant case, though the acquisition Notification dated11.01.2005 was issued in respect of the large extent of lands measuring798 Kanals and 2 Marlas, the extent of lands which were owned bymajority of land losers is a small extent. In fact, the details indicated inGthe judgment dated 10.01.2020 passed by the Reference Court hasreferred to about 69 appellants who were before it. Therefore, the extentto which each of the appellants is claiming compensation is a smallerextent. In that background, if the documents relied on by the respondentsat Ex.R5 to R16 are noted, the largest extent sold is under Ex.R16 beingH32 Kanals and 16 Marlas, while the least being under Ex.R8 measuring 3 Kanals and 8 Marlas. We have referred to this aspect of the matter toindicate that while approving the procedure for placing reliance on thesale deeds of earlier sale transactions as exemplars, this Court startingfrom the case of Kakhot SinghJi Vajesinghji Vaghela (supra) andseveral other cases has emphasized that the basis for the same is thatthe value under such exemplars would represent the sale considerationagreed upon between a willing seller and a willing purchaser and thereforewould represent the true market value.

15. If the above-referred concept is kept in perspective, one cannotloose sight of the fact that when large extent of agricultural land is soldunder a document and if the land is to be used for agricultural purpose,the price agreed thereto would be based on the nature of the land andthe purpose for which it is put to use. In cases, where the large extent ofagricultural land belonging to a single owner is acquired, it would nodoubt be safe to rely on such sale exemplars of large extents, moreparticularly, in circumstances where the land which is classified asagricultural land is also used for agricultural purposes. In suchcircumstances, to arrive at the market value depending on the nature ofthe cultivation, the capitalisation method by applying the multiplier to thecrop pattern and price derived can be adopted and the market value bedetermined or determine the market value based on such sale deedswhich are comparable exemplars.

16. However, the difficulty arises when a person holds a smallerextent of land which is classified as agricultural land but would have lostits character due to non-cultivation and urbanization when such land ismore eminent and fit to be used for non-agricultural purposes. It is inthat circumstance, such land though classified as agricultural will haveto be treated as a land having non-agricultural potential more particularlyfor urban use. In that light, in appropriate cases depending on the locationand the extent of land held by each of the land losers who is a part of thesame acquisition, is required to be kept in view, while applying the yardstickto reckon the appropriate exemplar and arrive at the ultimate conclusion.Therefore, there can be no strait jacket formula that when the sale deedsfor the sale of large extent are available and large extent of lands areacquired that alone should be reckoned as the exemplar. What is materialis its comparability, which would depend on case to case basis and thatis for the Court to analyze based on the evidence available on record.

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

A17. If the above-noted criteria is kept in perspective, in the instantcase as already noted and also demonstrated to us at the time of hearingwith reference to the final development plan of Gurgaon-Manesar UrbanComplex 2031 AD, the lands in issue are within the boundaries of theMunicipal Corporation. Further, the very award dated 10.05.2006 passedby the LAO records that no crops are standing on the land. Therefore,Bin that circumstance when smaller extent of land is available, the samewould be used for urban development and not for agricultural purpose.Hence relying on Ex. R5 to R16 which are sale deeds of a large extentof agricultural land, would not be justified unless there was furtherevidence brought on record to demonstrate that the nature of the landsCsold under the said sale deeds and the lands notified are comparable toeach other. In that view, though the reason assigned by the ReferenceCourt is not appropriate on that aspect, the ultimate conclusion to eschewthe said documents will stand justified.

18. If that be the position, from the documents which were reliedDupon by the appellants-land losers, the most appropriate document to berelied upon was Ex.PX dated 07.12.2004 since it was earlier to thenotification dated 11.01.2005 under Section 4, read with 17 of Act, 1894and in close proximity thereto, which has been rightly done by theReference Court. Since small extents of land belonging to the land losers,having non- agricultural potential in an urban area was notified forEacquisition, the said sale exemplar dated 07.12.2004 can be consideredas comparable. The Reference Court was, therefore, justified in reckoningthe same. Since the two dates are in close proximity, in our opinion,further addition of the escalation value for 35 days was not justified. Theescalation of that nature is normally to be taken if there are no documentsFwithin close proximity to the date of notification and a document of thelarger time gap is the only available document to be taken intoconsideration, in which case, the escalation for a longer time gap isrequired to be given.

19. Having arrived at the above conclusion, the next aspect whichGengages our attention is with regard to the appropriate deduction towardsdevelopment charges and as to whether the Reference Court was justifiedin deducting 35 per cent of the value from the market value arrived atbased on the document at Ex.PX. The learned counsel for the appellantscontend that the acquisition in the instant case is for construction of theroad and as such, the deduction was not necessary to be made. TheH

decision in C.R. Nagaraja Shetty (2) vs. Special Land AcquisitionOfficer and Estate Officer and Anr. (2009) 11 SCC 75 is relied on tocontend that in the said case where the land was acquired for wideningthe national highway, this Court has held that there is no question of anyfurther development, and as such the deduction on account ofdevelopment charges will not be justified. The decision in Piyara Singh& Anr. vs. State of Haryana & Ors. Etc. (2017) 2 SCALE 323, also adecision where this Court held that the deduction of 40 per cent as madein the said case when the land acquired was roughly 1 kanal to 1 acreper person which ultimately totals up to 305 acres which was acquired,is not justified is relied upon.

20. Having bestowed our attention to that aspect of the matter,we are of the opinion that in the instant case, the said decisions reliedupon by learned counsel for the appellants would not be of any assistanceto them since they are rendered entirely based on the fact situation arisingtherein. In fact, this Court in JAG Mahender & Anr. Vs. State ofHaryana & Ors. through the order dated 21.09.2017 in Civil AppealNo.15702/2017 arising out of SLP (C) No.16063 of 2016 and connectedappeals had taken into consideration the entire perspective relating tothe deduction of development charges with reference to the earlierdecisions of this Court in Haryana State Agricultural Market Board& Anr. vs. Krishan Kumar & Ors. (2011) 15 SCC 297 and in SabhiaMohammed Yusuf Abdul Hamid Mulla (Dead) by Lrs. & Ors. vs.Special Land Acquisition Officer & Ors. (2012) 7 SCC 595 whereinon taking note of the nature of development that would be required inthe acquired lands and also the general rule of deduction of 1/3[rd] of themarket value towards development cost except in cases where there isno development required, this Court had ultimately arrived at theconclusion that deduction of 25 per cent would be justified.

21. In that background, in the instant facts, the land acquired isfor the construction of a new Expressway which would require not justlaying of the roads but also providing several amenities through the highwayand also creation of service roads, flyovers, underpass to townships acrosssuch highway. Land is also to be left as a divider to bifurcate the two-way roads. Therefore, it would not be justified in saying that nodevelopment cost at all would be incurred. Hence, taking all aspects intoconsideration and also taking into consideration that the sale exemplarfor a smaller extent is being relied on for the reasons noted above, in the AB

C

D

E

F

G

H

Afacts and circumstance arising herein, it would be appropriate to reckonthe deduction towards development cost at 25 per cent of the valuetaken into consideration under the document Ex. PX dated 07.12.2004.Therefore, from the amount of Rs.33,60,000/- which is the value therein,a sum of Rs.8,40,000/- being 25 per cent is to be deducted. Hence themarket value to be determined in the present case would be Rs.25,20,000/B- per acre, which shall be payable with all statutory benefits ascompensation for the lands acquired.

22. Before we part with this matter, one other aspect which wasbrought to our notice is that in the first round of the case, a higher rate ofcompensation was determined and before the judgment was set asideCand remanded, in some of the cases the execution was levied and theamount was paid to the land losers. In view of the determination of thecompensation at a lower rate in the present round of proceedings, theexcess amount is being recovered by the respondents. The learnedcounsel for the appellants contend that if this Court determines the marketDvalue at a lesser rate than what has been paid to some of the appellants,such of those land losers who have received the amount, be protectedagainst recovery. Learned counsel for the respondents would vehementlyoppose such a request. Having considered this aspect of the matter, weare clear in our mind that it would not be possible for this Court to createtwo sets of land losers who are otherwise similarly placed, in respect ofEthe same acquisition process after having determined the market valueat a particular rate which is applicable to all of them.

23. Therefore, it is needless to mention that if any excess amounthas been received by any of the land losers than the extent of thecompensation determined herein, the excess amount, in any event, isFrecoverable. We cannot also lose sight of the fact that such a situationhas arisen due to the earlier orders of the Court determining thecompensation. Though it is not a mistake of the Court, it has led to thepresent situation due to the act of the Court. It would therefore beappropriate to invoke the principle of ‘actus curiae neminem gravabit’Gso that both parties are not prejudiced to the extent possible. Taking notethat the amount which has been received will be invested or utilised, toenable repayment after making arrangement, we direct that the balanceto be refunded, shall be paid back in three half-yearly instalments, freeof interest. However, if the amount is not refunded within the time periodas provided above, the same shall thereafter carry interest at 9% p.a.

H

and the respondent-HSIIDC would be entitled to recover the same,including the right to make recovery as arrears of land revenue.

A

24. In the result, we pass the following order;

(i) The judgment dated 07.10.2021 passed by the High Courtof Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in RFA No.421/2021,BRFA No.848/2021 and connected appeals, impugned herein,is set aside.

(ii) The judgment dated 10.01.2020 passed by the AdditionalDistrict Judge, Gurugram (Reference Court) in LAC CaseNo. 1426 and connected references is restored and modified.

C

(iii) In modification, it is ordered that the market value of theacquired land is Rs.25,20,000/- per acre. The same shall bepayable with statutory benefits and the costs incurredthroughout by the appellants.

(iv) The appeals are accordingly, allowed in part.

D

(v) Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.

Nidhi JainAppeals partly allowed.(Assisted by : Tamana, LCRA)

E

F

G

H