Ram Kishan (Since Deceased) through His LRs Etc. vs State of Haryana & Ors.

2025 INSC 441 REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 4772-4773 OF 2025 (@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NOS. 5544-5545 OF 2023)

RAM KISHAN (SINCE DECEASED) THROUGH HIS LRS ETC. APPELLANT(s)

VERSUS

STATE OF HARYANA & ORS. RESPONDENT(s)

WITH

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4774 OF 2025 (@ SLP(C) No.4044/2023)

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4775 OF 2025 (@ SLP(C) No.4051/2023)

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4776 OF 2025 (@ SLP(C) No.4045/2023)

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4777 OF 2025 (@ SLP(C) No.4058/2023)

CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 4778-4782 OF 2025 (@ SLP(C) Nos.4052-4056/2023)

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4783 OF 2025 Signature Not Verified (@ SLP(C) No.4048/2023) Digitally signed by RAJNI MUKHI Date: 2025.04.03 17:15:24 IST

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4784 OF 2025 Reason:

(@ SLP (C) No.4298/2023)

1 CIVIL APPEAL NO.4785 OF 2025 (@ SLP (C) No.9166/2023)

CIVIL APPEAL NO.4786 OF 2025 (@ SLP (C) No.15189/2023)

CIVIL APPEAL NO.4787 OF 2025 (@ SLP (C) No.15188/2023)

CIVIL APPEAL NOS.4788-4793 OF 2025 (@ SLP (C) Nos. 9509-9510 OF 2025 (@ Diary No. 53634/2023)

CIVIL APPEAL NO.4794 OF 2025 (@ SLP (C) No.14904/2024)

CIVIL APPEAL NO.4795 OF 2025 (@ SLP (C) No.14905/2024)

CIVIL APPEAL NO.4796 OF 2025 (@ SLP (C) No.14903/2024)

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4797 OF 2025 (@ SLP (C) No.15529/2024)

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4798 OF 2025 (@ SLP (C)No.14906/2024)

JUDGMENT

K.V. Viswanathan, J.

1. Delay in filing/refiling the Special Leave Petition(s) is

condoned.

2

2. Leave granted.

3. Sixteen1 out of the twenty-seven matters in this batch calls in

question the correctness of the judgment passed by a learned Single

Judge of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in RFA

No. 701/2022 and batch dated 20.09.2022. By the said judgment, the

High Court, for reasons different from those recorded by the

Reference Court, maintained the award of Rs. 55,71,010/- per acre as

ordered by the Reference Court in its judgment dated 29.07.2019.

Holding so, both the appeals of the land losers and the State were

dismissed. The land losers are in appeal(s) before us.

THE ELEVEN DIRECTLY COVERED APPEALS2

1 1. C.A. @ SLP(C) Nos. 5544-5545/2023 (2 Matters)

2. C.A. @ SLP(C) Nos. 4044/2023

3. C.A. @ SLP(C) Nos. 4051/2023

4. C.A. @ SLP(C) Nos. 4045/2023

5. C.A. @ SLP(C) Nos. 4058/2023

6. C.A. @ SLP(C) Nos. 4052-4056/2023 (5 Matters)

7. C.A. @ SLP(C) Nos. 4048/2023

8. C.A. @ SLP(C) Nos. 4298/2023

9. C.A. @ SLP(C) Nos. 9166/2023

10. C.A. @ SLP(C) Nos. 15189/2023

11. C.A. @ SLP(C) Nos. 15188/2023

2 1. C.A. @ SLP (C) Diary No. 53634/2023 (Total-6 Matters)

2. C.A. @ SLP (C) No. 14904/2024

3. C.A. @ SLP (C) No. 14905/2024

4. C.A. @ SLP (C) No. 14903/2024

5. C.A. @ SLP (C) No. 15529/2024

6. C.A. @ SLP (C) No. 14906/2024

3

4. Out of the twenty-seven matters in the batch, eleven matters

pertain to acquisition pursuant to the notification under Section 4 of

the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘LA Act’) dated 13.05.2010

and notification under Section 6 of LA Act dated 12.05.2011. They

pertained to village Malpura and Kapriwas. Insofar as these eleven

matters are concerned (arising out of judgment in RFA No. 1625 of

2019 and batch dated 02.11.2021), it is not disputed at the Bar that the

same are directly covered by the judgments of this Court in Civil

Appeal No. 5376 of 2023 [BESCO Ltd. vs. The State of Haryana

and Ors.] and Civil Appeal No. 2237 of 2024 [M/s Habitat Estates

Pvt. Ltd. vs. The State of Haryana & Ors.]. The judgments have been

delivered by this Court on 23.08.2023 and 13.02.2024 respectively.

By the said judgment(s), this Court allowed the appeals of the land

losers and enhanced the compensation to Rs. 1,49,14,975/- per acre

along with other statutory benefits. Hence, the eleven matters

mentioned in this para will be governed by the judgments passed by

this Court in BESCO Ltd (Supra) and M/s Habitat Estates Pvt. Ltd.

(Supra) and the land losers will be entitled to the same benefits as

was ordered by this Court. However, they will not be entitled to

4 interest for the period of delay in filing/delay in refiling after delayed

filing of the appeal(s).

THE OTHER SIXTEEN APPEALS3 – DHARUHERA VILLAGE

ACQUISITION BY SECTION 4 NOTIFICATION OF 12.12.2008

5. Insofar as the other sixteen matters are concerned, they pertained

to acquisition in village Dharuhera and were the subject matter of

acquisition by a Section 4 notification, issued on 12.12.2008. By the

said notification, lands of the appellants were proposed to be acquired

for Institutional Sector 5A under the Haryana Urban Development

Authority Act, 1977. The lands were situated in villages Dharuhera,

Garhi Alawalpur and Maheshwari, Sub-Tehsil Dharuhera, District

Rewari, Haryana. On 11.12.2009, a declaration under Section 6 was

issued. The Land Acquisition Collector (‘LAC’ for short), by his

award of 30.11.2011, determined the market value of the land at Rs.

3 1. C.A. @ SLP(C) Nos. 5544-5545/2023 (2 Matters)

2. C.A. @ SLP(C) Nos. 4044/2023

3. C.A. @ SLP(C) Nos. 4051/2023

4. C.A. @ SLP(C) Nos. 4045/2023

5. C.A. @ SLP(C) Nos. 4058/2023

6. C.A. @ SLP(C) Nos. 4052-4056/2023 (5 Matters)

7. C.A. @ SLP(C) Nos. 4048/2023

8. C.A. @ SLP(C) Nos. 4298/2023

9. C.A. @ SLP(C) Nos. 9166/2023

10. C.A. @ SLP(C) Nos. 15189/2023

11. C.A. @ SLP(C) Nos. 15188/2023

5 21,00,000/- per acre based on the Divisional Level Land Rate

Fixation Committee report, though the demand of the landowners was

Rs. 2,00,00,000/- per acre. Other statutory benefits were allowed and

a total compensation of Rs. 12,46,27,371/- was awarded to all the

landowners whose lands were acquired pursuant to notification dated

12.12.2008.

6. The appellants filed petitions under Section 18 of the LA Act,

seeking a reference for appropriate enhancement. The reference came

to be decided in LAC No. 122 of 2016 and LAC No. 123 of 2016.

Principally, it was contended that the State of Haryana has notified

Dharuhera Revenue Estate as a Municipal Committee Town in 2007;

that the acquired land was located on a prime stretch near developed

sectors and industrial areas in Dharuhera and had a significant

development potential; that the land is situated very near to the

industrial, commercial and residential sectors, already developed by

the Haryana Urban Development Authority (for short ‘HUDA’); that

the land is adjoining to developed residential and industrial area of

Bhiwadi also known as RIICO Industrial and Commercial Complex

Bhiwadi; that the acquired land is situated on the main road of Sectors 6 4 and 6 of Dharuhera and also on Dharuhera-Bhiwadi-Sohna Road;

that HUDA had constructed main sector roads adjoining to sector 4

and 6, fully developed by HUDA from Dharuhera-Bhiwadi NH No.

71B road to Highway No. 8 more than 10 years ago; that the

developers have constructed residential multistorey flats spreading

over 60 acres; that commercial complexes have also been constructed;

that the market price is not less than Rs. 15,000/- per sq. yard for

residential flats and commercial/institutional plots; that the land is

adjoining State Bank of India and very near to bus stand and Jungle

Babbler Tourist Complex of Govt. of Haryana; that the Modern Public

School, residential multistorey flats and petrol pumps are situated

opposite to the acquired land; that similarly hospitals and a Senior

Secondary School and residential complex are located on Highway

No. 8, near the acquired land; and that the Director, Town and

Country Planning, Haryana notified draft development plan of the

Dharuhera town as a residential-cum-commercial and industrial zone

on priority basis as the distance to Delhi was only 60 kms. They

further contended that the LAC failed to consider the market value of

the surrounding location of the already sold land where the value per

7 acre was Rs. 1,80,72,289/- by sale deed dated 13.05.2006

(Exh.PW4/G) and sale deed dated 17.05.2006 (Exh. PW4/C) where

the land was sold for Rs.1,00,00,000/- per acre. A site plan

Exh.PW6/1 was filed before the Reference Court. We will deal with

the site plan a little later in this judgment.

7. At the hearing before the Reference Court, Mr. Motiram,

Patwari of LAC Office Gurugram, testified that the land of the

appellants were located on Highway No. 8 adjoining to Sector 6 and 4

developed by HUDA at Dharuhera; that the land was adjoining to

Bhiwadi (RIICO Industrial Area) which was well developed for many

years; though he denied that the market value of the land was Rs.

15,000/ per sq. yard.

ACQUISITIONS IN MALPURA AND KAPRIWAS VILLAGES

– SECTION 4 NOTIFICATION OF 13.05.2010

8. At this stage, we need to digress a bit and deal with the acquisition

that was happening in the adjoining villages of Malpura and Kapriwas

for development of Dharuhera Industrial Sectors 15, 16 and 17. On

13.05.2010, a Section 4 notification was issued with regard to those

8 areas, followed by a Section 6 declaration on 12.05.2011. For those

lands, the LAC, by his award of 10.05.2013, awarded staggered rates

of Rs. 40,000/- per acre, Rs. 48,000/- per acre and Rs. 50,000/- per

acre, based on the recommendations of the District Collector, Rewari

who was a member of the Divisional Level Land Rates Fixation

Committee. The land losers filed reference in LAC No. 208 of 2016.

By the judgment of 21.11.2018, the Reference Court held that the

most relevant sale deed in that reference was Exh.PW4/3, a sale deed

executed on 13.08.2008 pertaining to village Malpura near to the

lands acquired therein. The sale deed involved lands to the extent of

12 kanals and 2 marlas. The sale consideration was Rs. 2,16,00,000/-

(Rs. 1,42,80,960/- per acre). Applying 60% deduction for

development costs, the Reference Court fixed the market value at Rs.

67,12,050/- per acre along with statutory benefits. In appropriate

cases, compensation for super structure was also awarded.

REFERENCE COURT DECISIONS IN THE DHARUHERA

ACQUISITION

9

9. Coming back to the land of the appellants in the sixteen matters,

their reference LAC No. 122 of 2016 and LAC No. 123 of 2016 came

to be decided on 29.07.2019. This reference, in turn, relied on the

reasons in Inderpal vs. State of Haryana & Ors. delivered in LAC

No. 119 of 2016 which also arose under the same acquisition and

notification of 12.12.2008 (Section 4) and 11.12.2009 (Section 6).

The Reference Court in LAC No. 119 of 2016 which was the relied

upon judgment in LAC No. 122 of 2016 and LAC No. 123 of 2016

had, in turn, relied upon the judgment in LAC No. 208 of 2016 which

pertained to acquisition in village Malpura and Kapriwas, pursuant to

notification dated 13.05.2010 (under Section 4) and 12.05.2011

(under Section 6). The reasons why the Reference Court relied on

LAC No. 208 of 2016 were set out in the following terms:-

“16…..This court is alive of Award/Judgments passed by it regarding acquisition of a adjoining village Malpura passed by this court on 21.11.2018 in LA Case No.208 of 2016 titled as 'Sultan Singh Vs State of Haryana & Others (set of 53 cases) vide which compensation was assessed at the rate of Rs.67,12,050/- (Rupees Sixty-Seven Lac Twelve & Fifty only) per acre, irrespective of the nature of land, in respect of the land of village Malpura, which was acquired for the purpose for development of industrial Sector 15,16 & 17 Dharuhera and present set of 18 petitions are for the purpose of

10 development & utilization of institutional sector 5A Dharuhera.

17. Justice cannot be causality in the game of litigation and Court on its own is competent to change the rules of the game to do justice. It was so observed by Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case-law Hoshiar Singh Mann Vs Charan Singh - 2009(162) DLT 208; Law Finder Doc Id#203842. Hence, this court gone directing the Reader of the court to retrieve from the National eCourts portal (www.ecourts.gov.in) above- referred judgment dated 21.11.2018 of this court passed in LA Case No.208 of 2016 titled as 'Sultan Singh Vs State of Haryana & Others' and place it on the records of this case-file and henceforth said judgment would be referred as Exh.C1.

18. Perusal of award dated 21.11.2018 (Exh.C1) passed by this court in LA Case no.208 of 2016 titled as 'Sultan Singh Vs State of Haryana & Others; notification under Section 4 of the Act in said case was issued on 13.05.2010. The land acquired in Exh.C1 pertains to village Malpura and for the purpose of development of industrial sector- 15, 16 & 17 Dharuhera. The land acquired in present matter is of village Dharuhera for the development & utilization of land as institutional sector-5A Dharuhera. The acquired land in both the matters is for the purpose of development & utilization of sectors Dharuhera, but there is a difference in the date of notification under Section 4 in both the matters as notification in the present case is one year five months prior to the notification' of award dated 13.05.2010 (Exh.C1). Case-law Harbhajan Kaur Vs Union Territory Chandigarh -2009(9) PLR 520 (P&H) become relevant on this point as therein award for adjoining village was made six months prior and Hon'ble High Court placed reliance thereupon by making reasonable cut of 6% for the time gap in the two notifications. Since basic rule is of 12% increase/decrease and Hon'ble High Court in case-law Harbhajan Kaur (supra) has applied cut of 6% for six month's time gap, so on that analogy a reasonable cut of 12% can well

11 be applied in the present matter for time gap of one year & five months (17 months) in the two notifications.

19. In view of peculiar facts & circumstances of the case, this court has arrived at the conclusion that the acquisition in the present case was made seventeen months prior to the notification pertaining to award Exh.C1. If a Reasonable cut of 12% is applied over Rs.67,12,050/- (compensation awarded in Exh.C1) for the time gap in the two notifications, the value of the acquired land in the present case comes to Rs.55,71,010/- per acre. Accordingly, it is held that the landowners in the present set of petitions shall be entitled to compensation for the acquired land at the rate of Rs.55,71,010/- (Rupees Fifty Five Lac Seventy One Thousand & Ten only) per acre. They shall also be entitled to all the statutory benefits available under the Act and this issue is decided, accordingly.”

(Emphasis supplied)

10. It will be clear from the above reasoning, the Court considered

placing reliance on award in LAC No. 208 of 2016 pertaining to the

adjoining village of Malpura will not be mechanical for the reason

that acquisition was for development of industrial sectors 15, 16 & 17

Dharuhera whereas in LAC No. 119 of 2016 (similar to LAC No. 122

of 2016 and LAC No. 123 of 2016) is for development and utilization

of Institutional Sector 5A Dharuhera. Considering the difference in

the date, the Court applied the principle of reverse deduction and

fixed the compensation at Rs. 55,71,010/- per acre along with

12 statutory benefits for the land losers in LAC No. 119 of 2016 (similar

to LAC No. 122 of 2016 and LAC No. 123 of 2016).

11. The land losers in the present appeal(s) filed appeal in RFA No.

4240 of 2019 and batch before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana.

The State of Haryana also filed appeals challenging the award in

Inderpal case (Supra) in RFA No. 701 of 2022.

HIGH COURT PROCEEDINGS IN THE MALPURA-

KAPRIWAS ACQUISITIONS

12. Simultaneously, there were developments before the High Court

in the Regular First Appeals filed by the land losers and the

beneficiary in the reference arising out of LAC No. 208 of 2016. In

the said RFAs, namely, RFA No. 1350 of 2019 and RFA No. 3991 of

2019, the High Court allowed the appeal(s) of the land losers on

02.11.2021under the notification of 13.05.2010 (Section 4) and

dismissed the cross objections of the beneficiary and enhanced the

compensation from Rs. 67,12,050/- per acre to Rs. 1,21,33,320/- per

acre. The High Court held as follows:-

13

“4.12 Keeping in view the aforesaid discussion, it is evident that the Reference Court has committed an error in deducting 60% from the sale exemplar produced by the landowners and relied upon by it.”

4.15 ……In the considered view of this Court, once the land measuring 12 Kanals & 2 Marlas, which is more than one and a half acre, located across the National Highway (the-eastern side of the National Highway) has been sold @ ₹ 1,42,80,916/- per acre, then, it was not appropriate for the Reference Court to apply 60% cut.

One and a half acre of land is not a small area of land. Further, the acquired land cannot be said to be used only for agricultural purposes particularly when the companies have started purchasing the same. In fact, Delta Cables Limited has purchased the land measuring, 12 kanals & 2 Marlas.

4.16 From a careful perusal of the layout plan (Ex.R12) along with the sale deeds, it becomes evident that the sale instance (Ex.P2) is with respect to the land measuring 6 Kanals & 19 Marlas. This is with respect to the land comprised in rectangle No. 49, 50, 51 and 52, located in village Kapriwas, which has also been acquired under the same notification. The layout plan clearly shows that the aforesaid parcel of land is abutting the boundary of village Malpura. In fact, there is no physical boundary between the villages. It is only a notional/fictional boundary so as to identify the land located in different villages. Furthermore, it is evident that in village Malpura, the land abutting the Delhi-Jaipur Highway upto the depth of approximately 10 acres has been acquired. It is significant to note that the land in village Malpura was sold @ ₹ 1,42,80,991/- per acre vide a sale deed dated 13.08.2008 (Ex.PW.4/3). However, this parcel of the land is comprised in rectangle No. 29 and khasra No. 4 & 5, which is on the other side (western side) i.e. across the National Highway-8. Although this parcel of land is not comparable however, it corroborates Ex.P2 with respect to the market value of the acquired land. Moreover, in additional evidence, the landowners have produced the sale instance dated 15.02.2010 with respect to the land measuring 5 Kanals & 2 Marlas sold @ ₹ 2,23,72,463/- per acre. This parcel of the land is also located on the western side of

14 the National Highway-8 and at some distance from the acquired land.

4.17 Since the most appropriate sale exemplar appears to be Ex.P2, which is not only abutting the acquired land but also forms a part of the acquired land, therefore, it is safe to rely upon the same. However, the sale instance is of 19.06.2008, whereas the notification under Section 4 of the 1894 Act was issued on 13.05.2010. The Court is required to determine the market value of the acquired land as on 13.05.2010. From a careful perusal of the sale exemplar (Ex.PW4/3) and the sale deed produced in additional evidence (Ex.PY), it becomes evident that the price of the land was increasing quite rapidly. The location of the acquired land is prime. In fact, the Industrial Estate of Dharuhera has already been developed and a lot of builders/developers/industrialists have already started purchasing the properties in and around the Industrial Estate of Dharuhera. Hence, it will be safe to assume that the market value of the land was increasing @ 10% per annum. Taking into consideration the aforesaid facts, the amount arrived at comes to ₹1,21,33,320/- per acre. The Court is expected to take a pragmatic view while assessing the market value, particularly when the parcel of land covered by Ex.P2, although situated in village Kapriwas, is abutting the acquired land of village Malpura. The land sold through Ex.P2 has also been acquired Hence, the market value of the land is assessed at ₹1,21,33,320/- per acre.”

(Emphasis supplied)

13. Ultimately, the High Court with regard to the lands pertaining to

acquisition made under the notification of 13.05.2010 (Section 4)

fixed the compensation at Rs. 1,21,33,320/- per acre along with other

statutory benefits. Holding so, it allowed the appeal(s) of the land

losers and dismissed the cross objection of the beneficiary. The same

15 result followed in RFA No. 3091 No. 2019 (HSIIDC v. Deepak

Kumar & Ors.)

14. The land losers under the notification of 13.05.2010 (Section 4)

who were ordered to be paid Rs. 1,21,33,320/- per acre, aggrieved,

filed Special Leave Petition (C) No. 4487 of 2022 & batch and

Special Leave Petition (C) No. 6127 of 2022 and batch before this

Court which was later converted to Civil Appeal No. 5376 of 2023

and Civil Appeal 2237 of 2024 respectively.

HIGH COURT PROCEEDINGS IN THE DHARUHERA

ACQUISITIONS :- PRESENT APPEALS

15. Pending those appeals in this Court, the High Court took up the

appeals (RFA) of the landowners in the present appeals. Since the

Reference Court had found justification for reliance on the award in

LAC No. 208 of 2016 (arising out of acquisition notification

13.05.2010 with appropriate reverse deduction), the land losers

pointed out to the High Court that in those matters there has been

further enhancement from Rs. 67,12,050/- to Rs. 1,21,33,320/- and

wanted at least parity, if not a further increase. The High Court held

16 that there was no evidence to prove that the acquired land in village

Malpura vide notification dated 13.05.2010 was comparable in its

geographical location, valuation and other factors and hence the

Reference Court erred in placing reliance on the award in LAC No.

208 of 2016.

16. The High Court also faulted the Reference Court for not

considering the sale deeds produced by the parties including sale

deeds which reflected a price lesser than the amount offered by the

LAC. The High Court referred to the layout plan produced by the

State and relied on Exh. PW4/D dated 02.05.2006 and rejected the

other sale deeds and after applying cumulative increase @ 12% per

year from the sale deed amount of Rs. 40,55,000/- per acre, arrived at

a figure of Rs. 54,42,653/-. Thereafter, the High Court concluded that

the awarded amount by the Reference Court of Rs. 55,71,010/- was

broadly the same. For reasons other than the one adduced by the

Reference Court, the High Court confirmed the judgment of the

Reference Court and dismissed the appeals of the landowners as well

as the State. Aggrieved, the landowners are in appeal(s).

17 PROCEEDINGS IN THIS COURT IN THE MALPURA-

KAPRIWAS ACQUISITION

17. In the meantime, this Court, by its judgment of 23.08.2023 and

13.02.2024 decided Civil Appeal No. 5376 of 2023 and Civil Appeal

No. 2237 of 2024 and enhanced the compensation with respect to

lands acquired in village Malpura vide notification dated 13.05.2010

and village Kapriwas from the awarded amount of Rs. 1,21,33,320/-

to Rs. 1,49,14,975/- per acre along with statutory benefits. This Court

held that the applicable deduction should be 33% and not 60% and

enhanced the compensation to Rs. 1,49,14,975/-. During the course of

the discussion, this Court observed as follows:

“The landowners based on the potential of the acquired land claim commensurate market value as of 13.05.2010. The acquired land is in a controlled area declared by the State of Haryana. Industrial Estate Dharuhera, Primary School at Village Maheshwari, Ghatal Mahaniawas and Aakera are at a proximate distance. The acquired land is claimed as situated in the industrial zone at Sector 15, Dharuhera. Apart from the advantageous neighborhood of establishments and industries, the land under acquisition is located alongside National Highway No. 8, i.e., Delhi-Jaipur Highway and Industrial Sectors 15, 16 & 17. Further, land sectors 8, 9, 10, 12 & 13 are opposite the industrial sectors of 17 and 16 across National Highway No. 8. Many development activities have occurred in and around the land acquired. The landowners refer to the existence of industrial units such as Penam Labs, U.B. Group, Capsu Gel,

18 Weston, Hero Motors Ltd., RIICO, Omax, Sona Koya, M. Teck, Bestech, Utility Engineering, Luthra, IST etc. within a radius of 1 k.m. of the acquired land. The acquired land had change in land use (CLU) under the Punjab Scheduled Roads and Controlled Areas Restriction of Unregulated Development Act, 1963. The gist is that the acquired land cannot be treated as an agricultural land.”

CONTENTIONS IN THE PRESENT APPEALS

18. We have heard Mr. S. B. Upadhyay, Ms. Kavita Wadia and Mr.

Gagan Gupta, Learned Senior Counsels for the appellants and Mr.

Alok Sangwan, Learned Additional Advocate General for the

respondents.

19. Learned Senior Counsels for the appellants have assailed the

judgment of the High Court by contending that the High Court could

not have solely gone by the exemplar in exhibit PW-4/D; according to

them even sale exemplars PW-4/C dated 17.05.2006 with a per acre

rate of one crore, PW-4/E sale deed dated 29.05.2006 with a per acre

rate of Rs. 95,00,000/-, PW-4/F sale deed dated 29.05.2006 with a per

acre rate of Rs. 95,00,000/-, and PW-4/H sale deed dated 08.01.2007

with a per acre rate of Rs. 1,80,72,289/- were also equidistant from

the acquired land though from the opposite side; that the High Court

itself noticed that some part of the acquired land was near PW-4/C;

19 that PW-4/E and PW-4/F were the most appropriate; that it is well

settled that where there are several exemplars, the highest exemplar

ought to have been taken and for this proposition they relied on

Mehrawal Khewaji Trust (Registered), Faridkot and Ors. v. State of

Punjab and Ors., (2012) 5 SCC 432. According to the appellants, if

the value of PW-4/E and PW-4/F dated 29.05.2006 is taken and 12 %

p.a. upward increase is added the compensation would work out to

approximately Rs. 1,17,80,000/- per acre. Learned counsel for the

appellants further contend that the acquired land touches the main

Highway NH-71B Sohna Road; that it had a big residential colony

opposite to it namely, Sector 4A, Dharuhera and there are multiple

schools and townships within 1KM.

20. According to the appellants, the land is surrounded by

Multinational Companies like Honda, Sehgal Papers, Cool Beverages,

Lumax Industries Ltd., K.J. Auto Parts and Real Estate Developers

like M2K and Dwarkadhish. According to the appellants, their lands

are also adjacent to the HSIIDC Dharuhera, Huda sectors and

Municipal Committees of Dharuhera. Learned Counsel for the

appellants relied on the recent judgment of this Court in New Okhla 20 Industrial Development Authority v. Harnand Singh (Deceased)

through Lrs and Ors., 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1691, to contend that

the sale deed which is a sole exemplar if relied upon as the sole

foundation would inadequately represent the value of the land, apart

from being significantly risky.

21. Strong reliance was placed upon the judgments of this Court in

Besco (supra) and Habitat (supra), wherein this Court enhanced the

compensation to Rs. 1,49,14,975/-. According to the learned Senior

Counsels, the proximity of the appellants’ land in village Dharuhera to

the lands acquired in village Malpura, Kapriwas and Sidhrawali was

apparent from the map produced by them in the courts below. According to them, the land in village Malpura which was acquired,

adjoins their land in Dharuhera and they sought parity with the

landowners in Besco (supra) and Habitat (supra). According to the

appellants, even the Reference Court found justification for applying

the market value arrived at in LAC No. 208 in 2016, as the base

figure to work out reverse deduction.

21

22. According to the learned Counsel, if in RFAs arising out of LAC

No. 208 of 2016 the value stood enhanced from Rs. 67,12,050/- per

acre to Rs. 1,21,33,320/- by the High Court and thereafter, to Rs.

1,49,14,975/- by this Court there is no reason not to treat this value as

the base figure to work out reverse deduction. According to them, the

distance between Malpura and Dharuhera is only 5 km and equally

the distance between Dharuhera and Kapriwas is also 5 km.

According to the appellants, while in LAC No. 208 of 2016 land was

acquired for industrial sector 14, 15, and 16 Dharuhera under the

13.05.2010 notification under section 4, the appellants’ lands were

acquired by notification of 12.12.2008 for institutional sector 5

Dharuhera. According to the appellants, that being so, the potential of

the land could not have been ignored. According to the appellants, the

High Court has noticed that Dharuhera and Garhi Alawalpur were

adjoining villages and having held so it committed an error in

ignoring all other sale deeds except exhibit PW-4/E.

23. A perusal of the chart of the exemplars set out in the impugned

order reveals that exhibit PW-4/H dated 08.01.2007 was a sale deed of

village Garhi Alawalpur where the market value was Rs. 22 1,40,00,000/- per acre. Equally, exhibit PW-4/I a sale deed dated

10.07.2010 in land situated in village Dharuhera the market value of

land was Rs. 1,30,00,000/-. According to the learned Counsel, it is

well settled that if comparable sales are not available in the same

village, it is always open to the Reference Court to consider sales in

the adjoining villages during the relevant period. Learned Counsels

relied upon the judgments which showed that compensation awarded

in respect of other villages, under certain circumstances, can be relied

upon for fixing the compensation of lands by providing appropriate

appreciation or deduction depending on the facts obtaining in the

case. Learned Counsel submitted that the potentiality of the land was

the same insofar as their lands were concerned like it was in the case

of lands acquired in the village Malpura and Kapriwas by the

notification of 30.05.2010. Learned Counsel contended that the land

has immense potentiality.

CONTENTIONS OF THE STATE

24. Learned Counsel for the State has encountered the submission

of the appellants and submitted that the value fixed in Besco (supra)

23 and Habitat (supra) cannot be applied to the appellants’ land since the

lands were acquired in the appellant's case by a different notification

of 12.12.2008 and the lands in Besco (supra) and Habitat (supra)

were acquired by a Section 4 notification of 13.05.2010. Apart from

this, the lands in Besco (supra) and Habitat (supra) were situated in

villages Malpura and Kapriwas, whereas the lands of the appellants

were situated in village Dharuhera. Further, the lands were not

comparable according to the counsel for the State, since the acquired

land in Besco (supra) in village Kapriwas was situated on National

Highway, whereas the land in question is far away from the National

Highway. According to learned Counsel for the State, exhibit PW-4/D

was rightly relied upon by the High Court since the land is only 3 km.

away from the acquired land. According to the learned Counsel for

the State, the other exemplars were rightly rejected. According to the

counsel for the State, in Besco (supra) the land losers had acquired

change of land use by paying heavy statutory charges and as such the

market value is not comparable. Learned Counsel for the State relied

on the order passed in SLP (Civil) No. 11275 of 2016 [Rajbir and

Others vs. State of Haryana and Ors.] and batch to support the

24 proposition that the award of the subsequent acquisition with

appropriate deduction could not have been adopted by the Reference

Court.

RELEVANT LEGAL PRINCIPLES

(i) PRINCIPLE OF DE-ESCALATION AND ESCALATION

25. In Peerappa Hanmantha Harijan (Dead) by Legal

Representatives and Others vs. State of Karnataka and Another,

(2015) 10 SCC 469, finding that lands which were acquired by a later

notification in 1988 were adjacent to the lands acquired in the case in

question in 1981, this Court applied the principle of de-escalation.

The relevant parts of the judgment are set out hereunder:

“77. Further, the land which has been covered under notification in 1988 is also adjacent to the residential sites which were formed. The landowners in that case produced the sale deeds of the years 1986 and 1988 respectively, which was 2 years and 2 months earlier respectively to the notification issued in the year 1988 and some of which were two to three years earlier. Taking the said relevant facts into consideration, the High Court of Karnataka redetermined the compensation at Rs 7.5 per square feet of land bearing Survey No. 389 covered in award passed in MFA No. 3796 of 2005 and Cross-Objection No. 213 of 2005 after giving deduction towards the developmental charges, de-escalation and conversion charges. The same method should be applied in the case on hand.

25 78. Further, the High Court ought to have taken into consideration the relevant fact that though the final notification for the land covered in MFA No. 3796 of 2005 and Cross-Objection No. 213 of 2005 was in the year 1988, it was for industrial development and the said land was also leased in favour of the allottee Company by KIADB to be used for the industrial development. The land along with the other lands covered in the 1981 notification was also acquired by the State Government for the purpose of the industrial development and allotted to the Company for the development of the industrial estate. Therefore, apart from the fact that there was a gap of 7 years in which the lands of the appellants were notified for acquisition to the land covered in MFA No. 3796 of 2005 and Cross-Objection No. 213 of 2005, it is an admitted fact that there is similarity in the nature of the land and the purpose for which they were acquired.

80. As per the survey conducted by the State Government, it is an undisputed fact that mineral is available in the land and the Company is extracting the same to be used as raw material for the manufacture of cement in its factory.

Therefore, though the land in the present case is a short distance away from the lands covered in MFA No. 3796 of 2005 and Cross-Objection No. 213 of 2005, both have been acquired for the purpose of industrial development and sought to be used for the same purpose by the Company. The land of the appellants herein along with other lands that was acquired vide notification in 1981 has been allotted in favour of the Company for the purpose of extracting the mineral of limestone which is the raw material used for the purpose of manufacturing the cement used for the commercial purpose. Therefore, the land of the appellants is acquired for the non-agricultural potentiality and the same is used for commercial purpose. Therefore, determining deductions towards de-escalation at 5% per year for 7 years and 10% towards waiting and other incidental charges would justify the

26 redetermination of the market value of the land of the appellants.”

26. Moreover, in Chandrashekar (dead) by LRs and Others vs.

Land Acquisition Officer and Another, (2012) 1 SCC 390, this Court,

while recognising the Principle of De-escalation held in Para 37, 40

and 42 as under:-

37. Even though escalation of market price of land is a question of fact, which should ordinarily be proved through cogent evidence yet, keeping in mind ground realities, and taking judicial notice thereof, we are of the view that land prices are on the rise throughout the country. The outskirts of Gulbarga Town are certainly not an exception to the rule. The exemplar sale deed dated 30-12-1983 was executed exactly 1 year 7 months and 17 days after the publication of the preliminary Notification on 13-5-1982. Keeping in mind the judgments referred to hereinabove, we are of the view, that no fault can be found with the determination rendered by the High Court in making a deduction of 10% under the head of “de-escalation”, specially when the period in question exceeded one year (as for annual deductions), by 7 months and 17 days.

40. Based on the aforesaid deductions, the High Court calculated the market value of the acquired land at Rs 67,954 per acre. In spite of the above, the market value of the acquired land for disbursement of compensation to the land-losers was fixed by the High Court at Rs 65,000 per acre. A perusal of the judgment rendered by the High Court reveals that in allowing final compensation at the rate of Rs 65,000 per acre to the land-losers, the High Court had placed reliance on market value fixed by the High Court itself in an earlier case. In this behalf, it would be pertinent to mention, that the High Court had awarded Rs 65,000 per acre as compensation payable to the land-

losers, in an earlier process of litigation pertaining to 27 acquisition of land, out of the same notification (under which the appellants' land was acquired). The aforesaid determination was rendered in respect of the land acquired from the revenue estate of Badepur Village.

42. The conclusions drawn by us hereinabove apply equally to Civil Appeals Nos. 8899-901 of 2011. In this behalf it would also be pertinent to mention, that the conclusions drawn by us pertain to acquisition of land falling in the revenue estate of Village Badepur. Insofar as the instant set of appeals are concerned, they pertain to land acquired from the revenue estate of Village Rajapur. The High Court, while making a reference to the land acquired from Village Rajapur, noticed that Village Rajapur had a lower market value as it was farther from the nerve centre of Gulbarga Town as compared to Village Badepur. As such, we are of the view that in the facts and circumstances of the present case, it would be just and appropriate to affirm the compensation determined by the High Court at Rs 65,000 per acre, even for the land acquired from the revenue estate of Village Rajapur.”

27. Similarly, in Sardara Singh and Others vs. Land Acquisition

Collector, Improvement Trust, Rupnagar and Others, (2020) 14

SCC 483, this Court considered as the base value award of the

previous acquisitions of lands from adjoining villages to the village in

question. In that case, the Court applied the principle of escalation.

Para 9,11 and 12 of the said judgement are set out hereinbelow:-

“9. What emerges, therefore, is that in respect of lands coming from Kotla Nihang, which were acquired vide Notification dated 20-3-1985, the compensation was awarded @ Rs 4,84,000 (Rupees four lakh eighty-four thousand) per acre and in respect of lands which were acquired from Village Haveli Khurd vide Notification dated 12-4-1989 the

28 compensation was awarded @ Rs 5,25,000 (Rupees five lakh twenty-five thousand) per acre. Mr Jain relied upon the site map appended at page 178 of the paper book to bring home the point that these two villages are adjoining to the village, with which we are presently concerned.

11. The fact that the acquisition in the aforesaid two villages was relied upon before the Land Acquisition Tribunal is quite evident from the discussion as aforesaid.

The location and the potential of the lands under acquisition and their proximity with the lands from Kotla Nihang and Haveli Khurd was the basis of computation in the award dated 9-11-2001 which was set aside purely on a technical ground. The rates awarded in respect of those acquisitions were Rs 4,85,000 (Rupees four lakh eighty-five thousand) and Rs 5,25,000 (Rupees five lakh twenty-five thousand) per acre. The acquisitions were of the years 1985 and 1989. We are presently concerned with acquisitions which were initiated pursuant to notifications issued in the year 1993.

12. In our view, the compensation as awarded in respect of these two villages is a pointer which cannot be disregarded. The extent of land involved in the present matters is 25 acres of land which was to be used for Transport Nagar Scheme, essentially an urban requirement. We, therefore, rely upon rate of Rs 5,25,000 (Rupees five lakh twenty-five thousand) per acre, as awarded in the year 1989 to be the base rate to arrive at the appropriate compensation for the acquisition in 1993 i.e. after four years. In the circumstances, in our view, the appellants are entitled to 6% cumulative increase over the base rate of Rs 5,25,000 (Rupees five lakh twenty-five thousand) irrespective of the category of land is awarded to the landholders.”

28. In Sardara Singh (Supra), this Court also distinguished the

judgment in Manoj Kumar and Others vs. State of Haryana and

29 Others, (2018) 13 SCC 96 and stated that the observations in the said

case were made in the context of the peculiar facts of the matter.

RELEVANCE OF PRIOR AWARDS

29. In Manoj Kumar (Supra), this Court in Para 11,12,13,14 and 16

held as under.

“11. In our opinion, the High Court could not have placed an outright reliance on Swaran Singh v. State of Haryana, 2012 SCC OnLine P&H 19044, without considering the nature of transaction relied upon in the said decision. The decision could not have been applied ipso facto to the facts of the instant case. In such cases, where such judgments/awards are relied on as evidence, though they are relevant, but cannot be said to be binding with respect to the determination of the price, that has to depend on the evidence adduced in the case. However, in the instant case, it appears that the land in Swaran Singh case was situated just across the road as observed by the High Court as such it is relevant evidence but not binding. As such it could have been taken into consideration due to the nearness of the area, but at the same time what was the nature of the transaction relied upon in the said case was also required to be looked into in an objective manner. Such decisions in other cases cannot be adopted without examining the basis for determining compensation whether sale transaction referred to therein can be relied upon or not and what was the distance, size and also bona fide nature of transaction before such judgments/awards are relied on for deciding the subsequent cases. It is not open to accepting determination in a mechanical manner without considering the merit. Such determination cannot be said to be binding.

12. We have come across several decisions where the High Court is adopting the previous decisions as binding. The

30 determination of compensation in each case depends upon the nature of land and what is the evidence adduced in each case, may be that better evidence has been adduced in later case regarding the actual value of property and subsequent sale deeds after the award and before preliminary notification under Section 4 are also to be considered, if filed. It is not proper to ignore the evidence adduced in the case at hand. The compensation cannot be determined by blindly following the previous award/judgment. It has to be considered only a piece of evidence, not beyond that. The court has to apply the judicial mind and is supposed not to follow the previous awards without due consideration of the facts and circumstances and evidence adduced in the case in question. The current value reflected by comparable sale deeds is more reliable and binding for determination of compensation in such cases award/judgment relating to an acquisition made before 5 to 10 years cannot form the safe basis for determining compensation.

13. The awards and judgment in the cases of others not being inter partes are not binding as precedents. Recently, we have seen the trend of the courts to follow them blindly probably under the misconception of the concept of equality and fair treatment. The courts are being swayed away and this approach in the absence of and similar nature and situation of land is causing more injustice and tantamount to giving equal treatment in the case of unequals. As per situation of a village, nature of land, its value differ from distance to distance, even two to three kilometre distance may also make the material difference in value. Land abutting highway may fetch higher value but not land situated in interior villages.

14. The previous awards/judgments are the only piece of evidence on a par with comparative sale transactions. The similarity of the land covered by previous judgment/award is required to be proved like any other comparative exemplar. In case previous award/judgment is based on exemplar, which is not similar or acceptable, previous award/judgment of court cannot be said to be binding. Such determination has to be outrightly rejected. In case some mistake has been done in 31 awarding compensation, it cannot be followed; on the ground of parity an illegality cannot be perpetuated. Such award/judgment would be wholly irrelevant.

16. To base determination of compensation on a previous award/judgment, the evidence considered in the previous judgment/award and its acceptability on judicial parameters has to be necessarily gone into, otherwise, gross injustice may be caused to any of the parties. In case some gross mistake or illegality has been committed in previous award/judgment of not making deduction, etc. and/or sufficient evidence had not been adduced and better evidence is adduced in case at hand, previous award/judgment being not inter partes cannot be followed and if land is not similar in nature in all aspects it has to be outrightly rejected as done in the case of comparative exemplars. Sale deeds are on a par for evidentiary value with such awards of the court as court bases its conclusions on such transaction only, to ultimately determine the value of the property.”

30. Even in Manoj Kumar (Supra), this Court did not hold that

awards in other cases which are relevant cannot be relied upon at all.

What is held was such awards will be relevant as a piece of evidence

and not be conclusive in nature.

POTENTIALITY FACTOR:-

31. It is also well settled that potentiality of the land is also to be

taken into consideration while assessing the market value. It has been

held that potentiality is the use to which the land is put to use or

reasonably capable of being put to use. [See Bijender and Others vs.

32 State of Haryana and Another, (2018) 11 SCC 180, Vithal Rao and

Another vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer, (2017) 8 SCC 558,

Ravinder Narain vs. Union of India, (2003) 4 SCC 481, Atma Singh

vs. State of Haryana, (2008) 2 SCC 568 and U.P. Awas Evam

Vikash Parishad vs. Asha Ram (Dead) through legal representatives

and Others (2021) 17 SCC 289].

32. Mr. Alok Sangwan, Learned Additional Advocate General relied

on the judgment in Rajbir (Supra). The said short order observed that

the High Court in that case went wrong in placing reliance on a

subsequent acquisition, by introducing method of appropriate

reduction. Those observations have to be understood as having been

made on the special facts of that case. It is not clear from the said

order whether the lands subjected to acquisition were proximate and

adjoining to the lands in the subsequent acquisition and whether they

were having similar characteristics. Hence, that case can be of no use

to the State.

ANALYSIS OF FACTS:-

33

33. We have carefully considered the contentions of the respective

sides. Having considered the respective submissions and perused the

records, including the sketch PW6/1, we find that the following facts

emerge:-

a) Firstly, Dharuhera Village was notified as a municipal land

and Municipal Committee was also notified on 20.07.2007;

b) Secondly, the lands acquired under the notification of

18.05.2010 (Section 4) of villages Malpura and Kapriwas

were for development of Dharuhera industrial sectors 15, 16

and 17 and the lands notified of the appellants herein on

12.12.2008 (Sector 4) were for Dharuhera Institutional

Sector 5A;

c) Thirdly, the villages are adjoining as the sketch PW-6/1

indicates. The acquired lands in the notifications of

12.12.2008 and 13.05.2010 were on the two sides of the NH-8

Jaipur-Delhi Highway;

d) Fourthly, the sketch also indicates that the Revenue Estate

Malpura and Bestech Mall are adjoining to the acquired lands;

e) Fifthly, the acquired lands are surrounded by Modern Senior

Secondary School, Huda Sector 4 residential colony, bus-

stand, commercial shops, Bajrang Nagar residential colony, 34 Parshavnath residential flats, M2K city, Bhagat Singh

residential colony and other developed areas. Hence, the lands

had immense potentiality and that it could have been put to

multifarious use cannot be disputed.

f) Sixthly, the Reference Court, in the present case, relied upon

the judgment of the Reference Court in Besco (supra), after

finding that both pertain to sectors of Dharuhera with the

appellants’ land forming part of Sector 5A and the lands in

Besco (supra) forming part of Sector 15, 16 and 17. It was

categorically noticed that the villages were adjoining and the

purpose of acquisition in both matters was development and

utilization for sectors in Dharuhera (institutional and

industrial respectively) and the difference was also in the date

of the notification.

g) Seventhly, the Reference Court, after taking the base value of

the compensation, awarded in Besco (supra) applied de-

escalation @ 12% for 17 months;

h) Eighthly, a perusal of the exemplars cited by the appellants

Exh. PW4/A-PW4/I of sale of lands in villages Dharuhera and

Garhi Alawalpur between 29.12.2005 and 08.01.2007 show

35 per acre price ranging from Rs.60,000/- per acre in 2005 to

Rs.80,72,289/- per acre in May, 2006, though the extent of

land is different in each of the sale deeds. The exemplar of

sale deeds relied upon by the appellants are extracted

hereinbelow:-

Sale Deeds adduced in evidence by the landowners Sr. Exhibit Sale Date Area Sale Rate per Village No. Deed Consideration acre No.

1. PW4/ 2914 29.12.2005 118K- 8,89,12,500/- 60,00,000/- Dharuhera A 11M

2. PW4/ 2 03.04.2006 91K- 9,44,10,940/- 82,50,000/- Dharuhera B 11M

3. PW4/C 406 17.05.2006 28K- 3,60,62,500/- 1,00,00,000 Dharuhera 17M /-

4. PW4/ 245 02.05.2006 108K- 5,49,50,000/- 40,55,350/- Dharuhera D 8M

5. PW4/ 554 29.05.2006 25K-8M 3,01,62,500/- 95,00,000/- Garhi E Alawalpur

6. PW4/F 556 29.05.2006 4K-4M 49,87,500/- 95,00,000/- Garhi Alawalpur

7. PW4/ 480 13.05.2006 33K-4M 7,70,00,000/- 1,80,72,289 Dharuhera G /-

8. PW4/ 2663 08.01.2007 92K-7M 16,16,12,500 1,40,00,000 Garhi H /- /- Alawalpur

9. PW4/I 1740 10.07.2010 32K- 5,33,81,250/- 1,30,00,000 Dharuhera 17M /-

The exemplar sale deeds relied upon by the State is also

set out herein below:-

Sale deeds adduced in evidence by the State Sr. Exhibit Sale Date Area Sale Rate per acre Village No. Deed Consideration No.

1. R-5 683 04.02.2008 3K-7M 8,80,000/- 21,01,492/ Dharuhera

-

2. R-6 1122 18.11.2008 17K-9M 45,81,000/- 21,01,492/ Dharuhera

-

3. R-7 1540 15.02.2009 2K-0M 5,25,000/- 21,00,000/ Dharuhera

-

36 4. R-8 1657 09.01.2008 8K-0M 19,00,000/- 19,00,000/ Dharuhera

-

i) The sale deeds produced by the State pertain to the period

09.01.2008 to 15.02.2009. What is important to note is there

is vast difference in the prices in the exemplars produced by

the appellants and by the State. In fact, the exemplars

produced by the appellants were on or before the notification

of the lands in question as a municipal land and before the

constitution of the Municipal Committee, which happened on

20.07.2007. The High Court has rejected all, but PW4/D

produced by the appellants on the ground that they were

located distantly from the acquired lands and rejected all the

sale deeds produced by the State on the same ground. A

perusal of the sketch reveals that exemplar PW-4/E and F

produced by the appellant is equidistant with PW4/D relied

upon by the High Court. The value in PW4/E and 4/F which

are sale deeds on 29.05.2006 for lands extending to 25 kanals

and 8 marlas and 4 marlas and 4 marlas respectively is in the

range of Rs.95,00,000/- per acre in 29.05.2006. PW4/E and

4/F are situated at Garhi Alawalpur.

37

j) Ninthly, the reasoning given by the High Court to only rely on

PW4/D is not satisfactory. Equally, the reasoning given by

the High Court that there was no evidence to prove that the

acquired lands in village Malpura vide notification dated

13.05.2010 was comparable with the then geographical

location, and other factors of the lands of the appellant in

these appeals is also bereft of merit. Not only does the map

indicate the proximity of the lands, the Reference Court has

rightly recorded that the villages were adjoining and the

acquisition was all part of development of sectors in

Dharuhera. The Besco (supra) lands were acquired for

Dharuhera industrial sector 15,16 and 17 whereas the lands of

the appellants were for Dharuhera institutional sector 5A. Even though, in this case, the acquiring authority is the same

and there is broad similarity in the purpose of acquisition, we

may only do well to recall the telling observations of Chief

Justice S.M. Sikri speaking for the 7-judge bench in Nagpur

Improvement Trust & Anr v. Vithal Rao & Anr. (1973) 1 SCC

500:-

“29. Can classification be made on the basis of the public purpose for the purpose of compensation for which land is 38 acquired? In other words can the Legislature lay down different principles of compensation for lands acquired say for a hospital or a school or a Government building? Can the Legislature say that for a hospital land will be acquired at 50% of the market value, for a school at 60% of the value and for a Government building at 70% of the market value? All three objects are public purposes and as far as the owner is concerned it does not matter to him whether it is one public purpose or the other. Article 14 confers an individual right and in order to justify a classification there should be something which justifies a different treatment to this individual right. It seems to us that ordinarily a classification based on the public purpose is not permissible under Article 14 for the purpose of determining compensation. The position is different when the owner of the land himself is the recipient of benefits from an improvement scheme, and the benefit to him is taken into consideration in fixing compensation. Can classification be made on the basis of the authority acquiring the land? In other words can different principles of compensation be laid if the land is acquired for or by an Improvement Trust or Municipal Corporation or the Government? It seems to us that the answer is in the negative because as far as the owner is concerned it does not matter to him whether the land is acquired by one authority or the other.”

k) Lastly, on the facts of the case and the evidence on record, we

are convinced that reliance can safely be placed on the value

of the land arrived at in Besco (supra) to treat it as base value

for the appellants lands as was rightly done by the Reference

Court. All that will be required is to apply appropriate

percentage of de-escalation in accordance with the judgments

of this Court and also provide for appropriate reduction for

39 change of land use charges which the appellants would have

incurred in case they wanted to change the land use

themselves in the event of there being no acquisition.

34. Considering the factors mentioned above, we to start with take

the value of the land fixed in Besco (supra), namely, Rs.1,49,14,975

per acre as the base value. We may also notice that insofar as the

exemplar that was relied on in Besco (supra), Exh. PW4/3 therein, the

sale deed executed on 13.08.2008 pertaining to the village Malpura

and involving 12 kanals and 2 marlas of land sold @ Rs.1,42,80,960/-

per acre. We are indicating this to only demonstrate that even before

the notification as the municipal area, prices in Dharuhera as evident

from the exemplars cited by the appellants, indicate a range of

Rs.1,30,00,000/- per acre and Rs. 1,80,72,289/- per acre though for

varying extent of lands. Hence, even the test laid down in Manoj

(supra) as set out above is satisfied in the present case and we are

convinced that reliance can safely be placed on the award in Besco

(supra) to arrive at a base value.

40

35. Having arrived at the base value unlike the Reference Court, we

are inclined to apply de-escalation @ 12 p.a. for one year and for the

remaining five months an additional 6% on the base value. So doing,

we arrive at the figure of Rs.1,23,37,668/- per acre.

36. Approaching from a different angle, we find that the market

value arrived at is broadly the same. PW-4/E and PW-4/F pertain to

sale made in Garhi Alawalpur on 29.05.2006 for a per acre price of

Rs.95,00,000/-. If we apply 12% p.a. escalation on this price for 31

months from 29.05.2006 till 12.12.2008, (as was done by the High

Court for PW-4/D), we arrive at the figure of Rs.1,27,50,976/- per

acre. We have, however, taken the base figure as Rs.1,23,37,668/-

only.

37. One of the arguments of the State is that the land in Besco

(supra) had change of land use (CLU) permission and the owners

therein had paid CLU rates. We find merit in the contention of the

State. To provide adjustment for them, deducting Rs. 5 lakhs per acre

on a rough and ready estimate, we arrive at the figure of

Rs.1,18,37,668/- as the base value on which statutory benefits under

41 Section 23(1-A), 23(2) & 28 of the LA Act in accordance with law

has to be paid after deducting the amounts already paid to the

landowners.

38. In view of the above, we set aside the judgment of the High

Court dated 20.09.2022 in RFA No. 701/2022 and batch and partly

allow the appeals4. The appellants shall be paid a sum of

Rs.1,18,37,668/- per acre and statutory benefits under Section 23(1-

A), 23(2) & 28 of the LA Act in accordance with law after deducting

the amounts already paid. Civil Appeal Nos. arising out of the

Special Leave Petitions5 will be covered by the Besco (supra)

judgment, namely, Civil Appeal No. 5376 of 2023. However, they

will not be entitled to interest for the period of delay in filing/delay in

refiling after delayed filing of the appeal(s). No order as to costs. 4 1. C.A. @ SLP(C) Nos. 5544-5545/2023 (2 Matters)

2. C.A. @ SLP(C) Nos. 4044/2023

3. C.A. @ SLP(C) Nos. 4051/2023

4. C.A. @ SLP(C) Nos. 4045/2023

5. C.A. @ SLP(C) Nos. 4058/2023

6. C.A. @ SLP(C) Nos. 4052-4056/2023 (5 Matters)

7. C.A. @ SLP(C) Nos. 4048/2023

8. C.A. @ SLP(C) Nos. 4298/2023

9. C.A. @ SLP(C) Nos. 9166/2023

10. C.A. @ SLP(C) Nos. 15189/2023

11. C.A. @ SLP(C) Nos. 15188/2023

5 1. C.A. @ SLP (C) Diary No. 53634/2023 (Total-6 Matters)

2. C.A. @ SLP (C) No. 14904/2024

3. C.A. @ SLP (C) No. 14905/2024

4. C.A. @ SLP (C) No. 14903/2024

5. C.A. @ SLP (C) No. 15529/2024

6. C.A. @ SLP (C) No. 14906/2024

42 ……….........................J. [B.R. GAVAI]

……….........................J. [K. V. VISWANATHAN] New Delhi;

3rd April, 2025.

43