Civil Appeal Nos.264-270 of  2019 etc.                Wazir & anr. V. State of Haryana

                                      1 REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NOS.  264-270 OF 2019 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos.19284-19290 of 2018)

Wazir & Anr.    ……Appellants

VERSUS

State of Haryana    ..…. Respondent

WITH

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 338      OF 2019 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.27342 of 2018)

WITH

CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 333-335 OF 2019 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos.26603-26605 of 2018)

WITH

CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 336-337 OF 2019 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos.26607-26608 of 2018)

WITH

CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 272-332 OF 2019 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos.26527-26587 of 2018)

WITH

             Civil Appeal Nos.264-270 of  2019 etc.                Wazir & anr. V. State of Haryana

                                      2 CIVIL APPEAL NO.339 OF 2019

(Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.27343 of 2018)

WITH

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 271 OF 2019 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.26457 of 2018)

WITH

CIVIL APPEAL NOS.340-341 OF 2019 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos.28210-28211 of 2018)

WITH

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 342 OF 2019 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.28985 of 2018)

WITH

CIVIL APPEAL NOs.593-617 OF 2019 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos.33586-33610 of 2018)

(D.No.41362 of 2018)

WITH

CIVIL APPEAL NOs.343-592 OF 2019 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos.33168-33417 of 2018)

(D.No.42687 of 2018)

JUDGMENT Uday Umesh Lalit, J.

1. Leave granted.

             Civil Appeal Nos.264-270 of  2019 etc.                Wazir & anr. V. State of Haryana

                                      3 2. The  landholders  and  HSIIDC1 have  filed  these  cross  appeals

challenging  the  final  judgment  and order  dated  09.03.2018 passed  by the

High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in RFA No.2373 of 2010

(O&M) titled Madan Pal  (III)  v.  State  of  Haryana and another  and in  all

connected matters.   Since all these matters arise out of the same acquisition

proceedings, they are dealt with together by this common Judgment.

3. About 1500 acres of land was notified under Section 4 of the Land

Acquisition Act,  1894 (hereinafter  referred to  as  ‘the  Act”)  for  the public

purpose of  development of  Industrial  Model  Township,  Manesar,  Gurgaon

Phases II, III and IV by three separate notifications.  The proposed acquisition

was:-  

i) re: Phase II

About 177 Acres 5 Kanal 19 Marla situated in the Revenue Estate of

Villages Kasan, Bas Kusla, Naharpur Kasan and Manesar, Tehsil and

District Gurgaon was notified on 06.03.2002.

(ii) re: Phase III

1 Haryana State Industrial and Infrastructure Development Corporation

             Civil Appeal Nos.264-270 of  2019 etc.                Wazir & anr. V. State of Haryana

                                      4 About 598 Acres 5 Kanal 12 Marla situated in the Revenue Estate of  

Villages Bas Kusla, Kasan, Bas Haria and Dhana, Tehsil and District  

Gurgaon was notified on 07.03.2002.

(iii) re: Phase IV

About 657 Acres 4 Kanal 3 Marla situated in the Revenue Estate of

villages Bas Kusla, Bas Haria, Dhana and Kasan, Tehsil and District

Gurgaon was notified on 26.02.2002.

4. Appropriate declarations under Section 6 of the Act were issued by

the State Government in respect of said lands under Phases II, III and IV on

15.11.2002, 25.11.2001 and 18.11.2002 respectively. Thereafter:

(i) In respect of lands proposed to be acquired for Phase II, Award

No.5  of  2003 was  passed  by the  Sub-Divisional  Officer  (C)-cum-

Land  Acquisition  Collector,  Gurgaon  on  22.07.2003  and  the

compensation awarded to the land owners for different types of lands

was as under:

Kinds of Land and rates per acre Village Chahi Banjar Gair

Mumkin Kasan 5,25,000/- 5,00,000/- 7,50,000 Bas 2,25,000/- 1,75,000/- 3,60,000/-

             Civil Appeal Nos.264-270 of  2019 etc.                Wazir & anr. V. State of Haryana

                                      5 Kusla Naharpur Kasan

5,25,000/- 4,00,000/- 7,20,000/-

Manesar 7,00,000/- 7,00,000/- 10,00,000/-

The extent of lands under various categories in the aforesaid

villages was set out in the award as under:-  

Name of  village

Kinds of Land Total

Chahi Gair Mumkin Banjar Kanal Marla Kasan 210-08 19-07 0 229 15 Bas Kusla 752-18 47-17 0 800 15 Naharpur  Kasan

52-12 0-02 0 52 14

Manesar 272-00 16-05 09-07 297 12 Grand  Total

1287- 18

83-11 09-07 1380 16

(ii) In respect of lands in Phase No.III, Award No.1 of 2003 was

passed  by  the  Sub-Divisional  Officer  (C)-cum-Land  Acquisition

Collector, Gurgaon on 24.12.2003 and the compensation awarded to

the land owners for different types of lands was as under:

Kinds of land and rates per acre

Village Chahi Gair Mumkin

Kasan 5,25,000/- 7,50,000/- Bas 2,25,000/- 3,60,000/-

             Civil Appeal Nos.264-270 of  2019 etc.                Wazir & anr. V. State of Haryana

                                      6 Kusla Bas Haria 2,25,000/- 3,60,000/- Dhana 2,25,000/- 3,60,000/-

The extent of lands under various categories in the aforesaid

villages was set out in the award as under:  

Name of Village

Kinds of land Total

Chahi Gair Mumkin Kanal Marla K M K M

Kasan 1602 8 234 11 1836 19 Bas Kusla 955 6 32 11 987 17 Bas Haria 163 15 2 7 166 2

Dhana 1740 4 58 10 1798 14 Grand Total

4461 13 327 19 4789 12

(iii) In respect of lands in Phase No.IV, Award No.6 of 2004 was

passed  by  the  Sub-Divisional  Officer  (C)-cum-Land  Acquisition

Collector, Gurgaon on 20.05.2004 and the compensation awarded to

the land owners for different types of lands was as under:

Kinds of land and rates per acre

Village Chahi Gair Mumkin

Bas Kusla 2,25,000/- 3,60,000/- Bas Haria 2,25,000/- 3,60,000/- Dhana 2,25,000/- 3,60,000/-

             Civil Appeal Nos.264-270 of  2019 etc.                Wazir & anr. V. State of Haryana

                                      7 Kasan 5,25,000/- 7,50,000/-

The extent of lands under various categories in the aforesaid

villages was set out in the award as under:  

Name of Village

Kinds of land Total

Chahi Gair Mumkin Kanal Marla K M K M

Bas Kusla 1619 13 75 16 1695 9 Bas Haria 874 9 30 10 904 19

Dhana 1402 4 89 13 1491 17 Kasan 1035 5 132 13 1167 18 Grand Total

4931 11 328 12 5260 3

5. Aggrieved and dissatisfied,  the  land owners  filed  references  under

Section 18 of the Act. Said references as regards lands acquired for Phases II

and III were dealt with as under:-

(i) In respect  of  lands  acquired  for  Phase  No.III,  in  LAC Case

No.513 of  2004 and other  connected  matters,  the Reference Court

passed  an  order  on  16.12.2009  enhancing  the  compensation  to

Rs.28,15,849/-  per  acre  with  solatium  and  interest  on  the

compensation amount at applicable rates.  The Reference Court relied

upon the decision of the High Court in  Pran Sukh etc. v.  State of

Haryana which related to acquisition for the same purpose of setting

             Civil Appeal Nos.264-270 of  2019 etc.                Wazir & anr. V. State of Haryana

                                      8 up an Industrial Model Township, Manesar pursuant to notification

under  Section 4  of  the Act  issued on 15.11.1994,  where  the  High

Court had assessed the compensation at the rate of Rs.15 lakhs per

acre.  The Reference Court granted 12% increase per annum on the

rate at which compensation was awarded in Pran Sukh by the High

Court and arrived at the rate of Rs.28,15,356/- per acre which was a

common rate for all kinds of lands.

(ii) In respect of lands acquired for Phase II, in LAC Case No.164

of 2004 and other connected matters, the Reference Court2 passed an

order on 27.01.2010 enhancing the compensation to Rs.28,15,356/-

per acre with solatium and interest on the compensation at applicable

rates.     Reliance was placed on the earlier decision dated 16.12.2009

of the Reference Court.  The Compensation was awarded at the same

rate for all kinds of lands.

 6.  While the reference applications in respect of Phase IV were pending

before the Reference Court, the appeal arising from the decision of the High

Court in  Pran Sukh was decided by this Court on 17.08.2010.  This Court3

2 the Additional District Judge, Gurgaon 3 (2010) 11 SCC 175 (Haryana State Industrial Development Corporation v. Pran Sukh & Ors.)

             Civil Appeal Nos.264-270 of  2019 etc.                Wazir & anr. V. State of Haryana

                                      9 determined the market value of the land, where notification was issued under

Section 4 on 15.11.1994, to be Rs.20 lakhs per acre.  Under said notification,

1490 acres of land from villages Manesar, Naharpur Kasan, Khoh and Kasan

was acquired.  This Court found that the High Court was right in relying upon

the sale deed dated 16.09.1994 (Ext.P1) but held that the High Court was not

right in imposing a cut of 20% and 25%.  It held that all the lands would be

assessed at the rate of Rs.20 lakhs per acre.     

7. The  reference  applications  in  respect  of  Phase  IV were  thereafter

taken up for consideration.  Relying upon the decision of this court in Pran

Sukh3 the Reference Court in its order dated 30.11.2010 in LAC Case No.263

of  2008  and  other  connected  matters  enhanced  the  compensation  to

Rs.37,40,230/-  per  acre.   While  so awarding,  the Reference Court  granted

enhancement at the rate of Rs.12% per annum taking the base rate to be Rs.20

lakhs per acre as on 15.11.1994 in terms of the decision of this Court in Pran

Sukh3.    The  Reference  Court  also  awarded solatium and  interest  on  the

compensation amount at applicable rates.   It  awarded compensation at the

same rate for all kinds of lands.

             Civil Appeal Nos.264-270 of  2019 etc.                Wazir & anr. V. State of Haryana

                                      10 8. In respect of acquisitions for Phases II and III where compensation

was awarded at the rate of Rs.28,15,356/- per acre as mentioned hereinabove,

RFA No.2373  of  2010  titled  Madan  Pal v.  State  of  Haryana  and  all

connected  matters  were  preferred  in  the  High  Court.   Said  appeals  were

disposed of by the High Court by its judgment and order dated 11.02.2011.

Relying on the decision of this Court in Pran Sukh3 it was observed by the

High Court in paras 22 and 29 as under:

“22. The  issue  under  consideration  in  the  present  set  of appeals  is  regarding  determination  of  the  value  of  land acquired  for  the  purpose  of  development  as  Phase-II  and Phase-III  of  Industrial  Model  Township,  Manesar.   The notification under Section 4 of the Act for Phase-II was issued on 06.03.2002, whereas for Phase-III, the same was issued on 07.03.2002.   For Phase-II, the total acquired land was 1380 kanals  and 16 marlas,  whereas for  Phase-III,  the same was 4789 kanals and 12 marlas.    The entire land is a compact block.   It  is  adjoining  to  the  land  already  acquired  for development  as  Phase-I  in  the  year  1994.   The  village,  of which the lands was acquired, are common in the acquisition or  are  contiguous  as  after  crossing  the  boundaries  of  one village,  the  abutting  land  of  the  next  revenue  estate  was acquired.  It was also contended at the time of hearing that almost  at the same time, land for development as Phase-IV was  also  acquired  adjoining  to  the  land  in  question  by notification under Section 4 of the Act issued on 26.02.2002, the  area  being  567  acres  4  kanals  and  3  marlas.   Even subsequent thereto, for development as Phase-V in the same area, 956 acres, 5 kanals and 18 marlas of land was acquired vide  notification  under  Section  4  of  the  Act  issued  on 17.09.2004.

             Civil Appeal Nos.264-270 of  2019 etc.                Wazir & anr. V. State of Haryana

                                      11 29. From the appreciation of evidence produced on record, in my opinion, the price of the agricultural land, which was acquired  in  the  year  1994,  as  determined  by  Hon’ble  the Supreme Court in Pran Sukh’s case (supra) can very well be taken as base for assessment of value of the acquired land, which  also  on  the  date  of  notification  was  being  put  to agricultural  use.   The  additional  advantage  available  at  the time of acquisition of the land in question was that the area in the vicinity had started developing during interregnum of 7-8 years after the first acquisition in the year 1994.  The value of the land, which was being put to agricultural use and was in the vicinity of the land already acquired cannot be determined at the same rate at which the plots were being sold by way of allotment or auction in the already developed area but those prices are certainly the guiding factors for  determination of rate at which the increase should be awarded, which in my opinion, should be @ 12% per annum.  Taking the same into account and considering the time gap in the two acquisitions being  7  years  and  3  months,  the  value  of  the  land  is determined at Rs.37,40,000/- per acre.  The land owners shall also  be  entitled  to  the  statutory  benefits  available  to  them under the Act.”

However,  as  regards  land  held  by  M/s  Kohli  Holdings  Private

Limited, the compensation was awarded at the rate of Rs.1.02 crores per acre

on the grounds that said land had frontage of two acres on National Highway

No.8 and that on the back side there was connection from a link road.  

9. The aforesaid judgment of the High Court passed on 11.02.2011 was

challenged in Civil Appeal Nos.4843-4940 of 2013 before this Court.  In its

decision in Haryana State Industrial Development Corporation Limited  v.

             Civil Appeal Nos.264-270 of  2019 etc.                Wazir & anr. V. State of Haryana

                                      12 UDAL and others4, this Court noted the contention of HSIIDC in para 22 and

then concluded in paras 29 and 30 as under: -

“22. Although in the special leave petitions filed by HSIIDC several grounds have been taken for challenging the judgment of the learned Single Judge, the only point urged by Shri Parag P. Tripathi, learned Senior Counsel appearing on its behalf is that the escalation of 12% granted by the learned Single Judge in the amount of compensation determined by this Court in Pran Sukh case is excessive and is not in consonance with the law laid down by this Court. He relied upon the judgment of this  Court  in  ONGC  Ltd. v.  Rameshbhai  Jivanbhai  Patel (2008) 14 SCC 745 and argued that while assessing market value of a large chunk of land, the Court cannot award more than 7.5% escalation in the market value determined in respect of  similar  parcels  of  land.  The  learned  Senior  Counsel emphasised that HSIIDC had to spend a substantial amount on carrying out development and argued that this factor should have been taken into consideration by the learned Single Judge while fixing market value of the acquired land. Shri Tripathi also criticised the impugned judgment insofar as it relates to the award of compensation at the rate of Rs 1,02,55,960 per acre in the case of M/s Kohli Holdings (P) Ltd. by arguing that in view of several statutory restrictions on the development of land  along  National  Highway  8,  the  landowners  could  not have been awarded higher compensation.

29. A careful scrutiny of the impugned judgment shows that while determining the amount of compensation payable to the landowners  other  than  M/s  Kohli  Holdings  (P)  Ltd.,  the learned Single Judge did make a reference to Ext. P-38 (para 30)  but  did  not  rely  upon  the  same  for  the  purpose  of determination  of  the  amount  of  compensation.  Instead  of adopting  a  holistic  approach  and  examining  the  documents produced before the Reference Court, the learned Single Judge

4(2013) 14 SCC 506

             Civil Appeal Nos.264-270 of  2019 etc.                Wazir & anr. V. State of Haryana

                                      13 simply referred to the judgment of this Court in  Pran Sukh case, granted a flat increase of 12% for the time gap of about 7 years and 3 months between the two acquisitions i.e. 1994 and 2002 and determined market value at the rate of Rs 37,40,000 per  acre.  In  the  case  of  M/s  Kohli  Holdings  (P)  Ltd.,  the learned Single Judge squarely relied upon Ext. P-38 for the purpose of fixing market value of the acquired land, granted an increase at a flat rate of 15% per annum on the price of land specified in Ext. P-38 with an addition of 30% on account of special  locational  advantage  and  held  that  the  particular landowner is entitled to compensation at the rate of Rs 2119 per  square  yard  (Rs  1,02,55,960  per  acre).  However,  no discernible reason has been given for granting the benefit of annual increase at different rates to M/s Kohli Holdings (P) Ltd.  on the one hand and the remaining landowners on the other. Therefore, we find merit in the argument of the learned counsel for the remaining landowners that their clients have been  subjected  to  discrimination  in  the  matter  of  grant  of annual increase.

30. The other error committed by the learned Single Judge is that he granted annual increase at a flat rate of 12/15%.”

This Court therefore allowed the appeals and remanded the matters

back to the High Court for fresh disposal.   Further,  liberty was given to

Maruti  Suzuki  India  Limited,  namely,  one  of  the  beneficiaries  of  the

acquisition to file an application for impleadment in the pending appeals

before the High Court.

10. Post  remand,  the  High  Court  by  its  judgment  and  order  dated

06.10.2015 passed in RFA No.2373 of 2010 titled Madan Pal (II) v. State of

             Civil Appeal Nos.264-270 of  2019 etc.                Wazir & anr. V. State of Haryana

                                      14 Haryana and  in  all  connected  matters,  remanded  the  cases  back  to  the

Reference Court for fresh disposal.  It was found that the acquiring authority

had not defended the matters properly and the beneficiary of the acquisition

ought to be given chance to place the material before the Court.  It, therefore,

permitted  Maruti  Suzuki  India  Limited  to  lead  evidence  in  the  Reference

Court.   Liberty was also given to all the parties to produce relevant evidence

in support of their submissions.  This judgment of the High Court was again

challenged before this Court in Civil Appeal Nos.1587-1636 of 2017 and in

all connected matters.  In its decision in Satish Kumar Gupta and others v.

State of Haryana and others5 and in all connected matters, this Court held

that the post-acquisition allottee, namely, Maruti Suzuki India Limited could

not  be  treated  as  a  necessary  or  proper  party  while  determining  matters

concerning compensation.   It,  therefore,  set  aside  the  judgment  and order

dated 06.10.2015 passed by the High Court and remanded the cases back to

the High Court for deciding the cases afresh.   

11. Thereafter, the matters were taken up for fresh consideration by the

High Court.  In support of the plea for enhancement in compensation, reliance

was placed by the landholders on following exemplars :-

5 (2017) 4 SCC 760

             Civil Appeal Nos.264-270 of  2019 etc.                Wazir & anr. V. State of Haryana

                                      15

Exhibits Date Area/ Village

Sale Consideration in Rs.

Value  per acre in Rs.

Ex.P1 12.06.1997 2 kanals /  Bas Kusla

2,00,000/- 8 lakhs

Ex.P2 23.06.1997 1  kanal  10 marlas  /  Bas Kusla

4,50,000/- 8 lakhs

Ex.P3 18.09.1997 18 kanals/ Dhana 14,28,750/- 6,35,000/- Ex.P4 18.08.2003 1  kanal  4

Marlas/ Kasan 7,30,000/- 48,66,666/-

Ex.P6 16.09.1994 96  kanals  13 marlas  (12.081 acres)/Naharpur Kasan

2.42 crores 20 lakhs

Ex.P8 20.09.1996 1  kanal  1½ marla/  Naharpur Kasan

3,53,000/- 25 lakhs

Ex.PY 28.04.2004 96  kanals  13 marlas/ Naharpur Kasan

13.62 crores 1.13crores

Apart from the aforesaid exemplars, certain allotments of developed

pieces  of  land  namely  Ext.P4  in  favour  of  Orient  Craft  Ltd.  dated

02.02.2002,  Ext.P11 dated  30.09.1999 in  favour  of  Krishna  Maruti  Ltd.,

Ext.P14 dated 07.08.2002 in favour of M/s Royal Tool, etc., were also relied

upon. Submission was also made that taking the rate of Rs.20 lakhs per acre

as  held  by this  Court  in  Pran Sukh3  to  be  the  prevalent  rate  in  1994,

             Civil Appeal Nos.264-270 of  2019 etc.                Wazir & anr. V. State of Haryana

                                      16 enhancement at 15% could also be considered to arrive at the appropriate

rate for the year 2002.

On the other hand, a prayer was made on behalf of HSIIDC and the

State to permit them to place on record certain sale deeds of 1994 and 2002

by way of  additional  evidence  in  support  of  the  plea  that  compensation

awarded by the Reference Court was on the higher side.  The prayer to lead

additional evidence was however rejected by the High Court.   

12. The  High  Court  observed  that  reliance  on  the  allotment  letters  of

various industrial plots or the instances of auction sales would not be a safe

parameter  to  assess  the  market  value.   The High  Court  then  considered

cumulative  increase  in  the  price  considering  the  rate  of  Rs.20  lakhs  as

awarded by this Court in  Pran Sukh3 to be the base rate.  Out of the sale

deeds on record, it considered Ext.P8 dated 20.09.1996 in favour of Times

Masters India Pvt. Ltd. to be the most appropriate exemplar, and at the same

time it also computed the figures by giving cumulative enhancement at the

rates of 12% and 15% over the base rate of Rs.20 lakhs per acre as awarded

by this Court in Pran Sukh3 (supra).  Thereafter, cut of 10% and 20% was

also applied.  Paragraphs 95, 96, 97, 98 of the judgment were:-

             Civil Appeal Nos.264-270 of  2019 etc.                Wazir & anr. V. State of Haryana

                                      17

“95. Thus,  if  cumulative  benefit  by  way  of  12% cumulative  increase  is  to  be  given  on  the  base  price  of Rs.20 lakhs from 1994 to 2001 enhancement would come to as under:-

Year Principal

Amount

(Rs.)

Enhanced

Amount

(Rs.)

Total amount

(Rs.)

1994 20,00,000.00 -- 20,00,000.00 1995 20,00,000.00 2,40,000.00 22,40,000.00 1996 22,40,000.00 2,68,800.00 25,08,800.00 1997 25,08,800.00 3,01,056.00 28,09,856.00 1998 28,09,856.00 3,37,182.72 31,47,038.72 1999 31,47,038.72 3,77,644.65 35,24,683.37 2000 35,24,683.37 4,22,962.00 39,47,645.37 2001 39,47,645.37 4,73,717.44 44,21,362.81

Cut on the amount of Rs.44,21,362 @ 10% (Rs.4,42,136): 39,79,226/-

Cut  on  the  amount  of  Rs.44,21,362  @  20% (Rs.8,84,272/-): 35,37,090/-

             Civil Appeal Nos.264-270 of  2019 etc.                Wazir & anr. V. State of Haryana

                                      18

96. Similarly,  if  the  enhancement  is  to  be  granted  @ 15% on Rs.20 lakhs from 1994 to 2001, it works out as under:-

Year Principal Amount (Rs.)

Enhanced Amount (Rs.)

Total amount (Rs.)

1994 20,00,000.00 -- 20,00,000.00 1995 20,00,000.00 3,00,000/- 23,00,000.00 1996 23,00,000.00 3,45,000/- 26,45,000.00 1997 26,45,000.00 3,96,750.00 30,41,750.00 1998 30,41,750.00 4,56,262.50 34,98,012.50 1999 34,41,750.00 5,24,701.87 40,22,714.37 2000 40,22,714.37 5,70,328.12 46,26,121.52 2001 46,26,121.52 6,93,918.23 53,20,039.76

Cut  on  the  amount  of  Rs.53,20,039  @  10% (Rs.5,32,003/-): 47,88,036/-

Cut  on  the  amount  of  Rs.53,20,039  @  20% (Rs.10,64,007/-): 42,56,032/-

97. Similarly, if the benefit of 12% cumulative increase is to be given on the sum of Rs.25 lakhs after the sale deed from 1996 (Ex.P8) in favour of Times Master India Private Limited to 2001 enhancement would come to as under:-

Year Principal Amount (Rs.)

Enhanced Amount (Rs.)

Total amount (Rs.)

1996 25,00,000.00 -- 25,00,000.00 1997 25,00,000.00 3,00,000.00 28,00,000.00 1998 28,00,000.00 3,36,000.00 31,36,000.00 1999 31,36,000.00 3,76,320.00 35,12,320.00 2000 35,12,320.00 4,21,478.40 39,33,798.40 2001 39,33,798.40 4,72,055.81 44,05,854.21

             Civil Appeal Nos.264-270 of  2019 etc.                Wazir & anr. V. State of Haryana

                                      19

Cut on the amount of Rs.44,05,854 @10 (Rs.4,40,585/-): 39,65,269/-

Cut  on  the  amount  of  Rs.44,05,854  @  20% (Rs.8,81,1702/-): 35,24,684/-

98. For enhancement @ 15% on Rs.25 lakhs from 1996 to 2001, the amount works out as under:-

Year Principal Amount (Rs.)

Enhanced Amount (Rs.)

Total amount (Rs.)

1996 25,00,000.00 -- 25,00,000.00 1997 25,00,000.00 3,75,000.00 28,75,000.00 1998 28,75,000.00 4,31,250.00 33,06,250.00 1999 33,06,250.00 4,95,937.50 38,02,187.50 2000 38,02,187.50 5,70,328.12 43,72,515.62

Cut on the amount of Rs.50,28,392 @ 10% (Rs.5,02,839/-): 45,25,553/-

Cut  on  the  amount  of  Rs.50,28,392  @  20% (Rs.10,05,678/-): 40,22,714/-”.

13. On  the  basis  of  the  aforesaid  figures,  taking  average  of  both  the

parameters after giving 15% enhancement but effecting 20% cut, the figure

of Rs.41,39,373/- which was rounded off to Rs.41.40 lakhs was taken as the

market value for the lands in question as under:-   

“103.  Thus, when we compare the enhancement firstly on the principle  of  cumulative  increase  on  the  price  fixed  by  the Apex  Court  in  Pran Sukh (supra)  on  Rs.20  Lakhs  @15%

             Civil Appeal Nos.264-270 of  2019 etc.                Wazir & anr. V. State of Haryana

                                      20 from 1994 till 2001, it works out to Rs.53,20,039/-.  Similarly, if the enhancement of 15% is given on the basis of the sale deed Ex.P8 in favour of Time Master India Private Limited from 1996 to 2001, the amount works out to Rs.50,28,392/-. In  case  the cut  of  20% is  applied  on the  said  amount,  the amounts  worked  out  to  Rs.42,56,032/-  in  one  case  and Rs.44,22,714/- in other case.

104. Resultantly, if the average of both the formulas is also worked out the amount after giving 20% cut the average of said formulas would take the market value to Rs.41,39,373/- and,  accordingly,  after  rounding it  off,  this  Court  is  of  the opinion that Rs.41.40 lakhs would be the appropriate market value for the land in question.”

14. The High Court,  thus,  by its judgment and order dated 09.03.2018

passed in RFA No.2373 of 2010 titled Madan Pal (III) v.  State of Haryana

and in all connected matters assessed the compensation at Rs.41.40 lakhs

per acre along with statutory benefits in respect of lands acquired in villages

Naharpur  Kasan,  Kasan,  Bas  Haria,  Bas  Kusla  and  Dhana  (covered  by

Phases  II  and III).   The compensation in  village Maneswar  (covered by

Phase-IV) was assessed after giving 50% enhancement at Rs.62.10 lakhs per

acre along with statutory benefits.  As regards M/s Kohli Holdings Pvt. Ltd.,

additional component of 30% was also awarded on account of severance

charges, over and above the rate of Rs.62.10 lakhs per acre.

             Civil Appeal Nos.264-270 of  2019 etc.                Wazir & anr. V. State of Haryana

                                      21 15. The aforesaid view of the High Court is now under challenge in these

cross  appeals.   Mr.  Dhruv  Mehta  and  Ms.  Kiran  Suri,  learned  Senior

Advocates for the landholders relied upon the allotments of developed plots

as indicators of high potential of the lands.  It was submitted that even if the

rate awarded in Pran Sukh3 was to be taken as the base rate, there ought not

to have been any cut and secondly, the compensation ought to have been

arrived at till 2002 and not upto 2001 as was done by the High Court.   Mr.

R. S. Suri, learned Senior Advocate appearing for M/s. Kohli Holdings Pvt.

Ltd. stressed upon the incongruity in the price awarded presently as against

one that was granted on the earlier occasion.  He submitted that the lands of

his client were on National Highway No.8 and were bestowed with all the

advantages and as such the price awarded on the earlier occasion was the

correct one.  Mr. Alok Sangwan, learned Advocate appearing for HSIIDC

contended that the sale deeds of 1994 and 2002 ought to have been allowed

to be placed on record.  In his submission the compensation awarded by the

High Court was on the higher side.  In any case, considering the huge extent

of land the enhancement ought to have been in terms of law laid down by

             Civil Appeal Nos.264-270 of  2019 etc.                Wazir & anr. V. State of Haryana

                                      22 this Court in General Manager, Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited.

v. Rameshbhai Jivanbhai Patel and Another6 and other cases.

  16. We must first consider the submissions based on the allotments and

instances  of  auction  purchases  of  developed  plots  effected  by  the

Development Authority itself.  These submissions were rightly rejected by

the High Court.  The law on the point is well settled as stated in Lal Chand

vs. Union of India and another 7.  We therefore, reject these submissions.

17. Before we consider other submissions, it must be mentioned that the

assessment made by the High Court in its judgment dated 11.02.2011 was

not approved by this Court as is evident from its judgment4.   This Court

recorded the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for HSIIDC

that  12%  cumulative  escalation  on  the  rate  in  Pran  Sukh3 itself  was

excessive and not in consonance with the law laid down by this Court and

also found that the landholders were aggrieved by non-consideration of the

documents  produced  before  the  Reference  Court  as  well  as  the  inter  se

discrimination  between  M/s.  Kohli  Holdings  Pvt.  Ltd.  and  the  other

landholders.  We must therefore consider the matter from two perspectives

6 (2008) 14 SCC 745  7 (2009) 15 SCC 769

             Civil Appeal Nos.264-270 of  2019 etc.                Wazir & anr. V. State of Haryana

                                      23 namely on the strength of the documents on record and on the basis of the

rate as found in Pran Sukh3 to arrive at the appropriate market value.

18. We  must  also  note,  at  the  outset,  the  governing  legal  principles

regarding annual increase over a base rate.  The law in that behalf has been

succinctly stated by this Court in ONGC Limited (supra) in paras 10 to 17

under the heading “what should be the increase per annum” as under:-

“10. The contention of the appellant is  that  even if  Ext.  15 should be the basis, in the absence of any specific evidence regarding  increase  in  prices  between  1987  and  1992,  the annual increase could not be assumed to be 10% per year.

11. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent claimants submitted that the rate of escalation in market value at  the  relevant  time  was  in  the  range  of  10% to  15% per annum.  He  relied  on  the  decisions  of  this  Court  in  Ranjit Singh v. Union Territory of Chandigarh (1992) 4 SCC 659 and Land Acquisition Officer  and Revenue Divisional  Officer v. Ramanjulu (2005) 9 SCC 594 wherein this Court had accepted an escalation of ten per cent per annum, and the decision in Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti v.  Bipin Kumar (2004) 2 SCC 283 where this Court had accepted an escalation of 15% per annum. He, therefore, submitted that escalation at the rate of 10 per cent adopted by the Reference Court and approved by the  High  Court  is  a  reasonable  and  correct  standard  to  be applied.

12. We have examined the facts of the three decisions relied on by the respondents. They all related to acquisition of lands in urban or  semi-urban areas.  Ranjit  Singh  (1992)  4 SCC 659 related  to  acquisition  for  development  of  Sector  41  of

             Civil Appeal Nos.264-270 of  2019 etc.                Wazir & anr. V. State of Haryana

                                      24 Chandigarh.  Ramanjulu  (2005)  9  SCC  594  related  to acquisition of the third phase of an existing and established industrial estate in an urban area. Bipin Kumar (2004) 2 SCC 283 related to an acquisition of lands adjoining Badaun-Delhi Highway  in  a  semi-urban  area  where  building  construction activity was going on all around the acquired lands.

13. Primarily,  the  increase  in  land  prices  depends  on  four factors:  situation  of  the  land,  nature  of  development  in surrounding area, availability of land for development in the area, and the demand for land in the area. In rural areas, unless there is any prospect of development in the vicinity, increase in  prices  would  be  slow,  steady  and  gradual,  without  any sudden spurts or jumps. On the other hand, in urban or semi- urban  areas,  where  the  development  is  faster,  where  the demand  for  land  is  high  and  where  there  is  construction activity all around, the escalation in market price is at a much higher rate, as compared to rural areas. In some pockets in big cities, due to rapid development and high demand for land, the escalations in prices have touched even 30% to 50% or more per year, during the nineties.

14. On the other extreme, in remote rural areas where there was no chance of any development and hardly any buyers, the prices stagnated for years or rose marginally at a nominal rate of 1% or 2% per annum. There is thus a significant difference in  increases  in  market  value  of  lands  in  urban/semi-urban areas and increases in market value of lands in the rural areas. Therefore, if the increase in market value in urban/semi-urban areas  is  about  10%  to  15%  per  annum,  the  corresponding increases in rural areas would at best be only around half of it, that is, about 5% to 7.5% per annum. This rule of thumb refers to  the  general  trend  in  the  nineties,  to  be  adopted  in  the absence of clear and specific evidence relating to increase in prices. Where there are special reasons for applying a higher rate of increase, or any specific evidence relating to the actual

             Civil Appeal Nos.264-270 of  2019 etc.                Wazir & anr. V. State of Haryana

                                      25 increase  in  prices,  then  the  increase  to  be  applied  would depend upon the same.

15. Normally, recourse is taken to the mode of determining the market  value  by  providing  appropriate  escalation  over  the proved  market  value  of  nearby  lands  in  previous  years  (as evidenced by sale transactions or acquisitions), where there is no  evidence  of  any  contemporaneous  sale  transactions  or acquisitions of comparable lands in the neighbourhood. The said  method  is  reasonably  safe  where  the  relied-on  sale transactions/acquisitions  precede  the  subject  acquisition  by only a few years, that is, up to four to five years. Beyond that it  may be unsafe,  even if  it  relates  to  a  neighbouring land. What may be a reliable standard if the gap is of only a few years, may become unsafe and unreliable standard where the gap is larger. For example, for determining the market value of a land acquired in 1992, adopting the annual increase method with reference to a sale or acquisition in 1970 or 1980 may have many pitfalls. This is because, over the course of years, the “rate” of annual increase may itself undergo drastic change apart from the likelihood of occurrence of varying periods of stagnation in prices or  sudden spurts in prices affecting the very standard of increase.

16. Much more  unsafe  is  the  recent  trend to  determine the market value of acquired lands with reference to future sale transactions or acquisitions. To illustrate, if the market value of a land acquired in 1992 has to be determined and if there are no sale transactions/acquisitions of 1991 or 1992 (prior to the date of preliminary notification), the statistics relating to sales/acquisitions  in  future,  say  of  the  years  1994-1995  or 1995-1996 are taken as the base price and the market value in 1992 is worked back by making deductions at the rate of 10% to  15%  per  annum.  How  far  is  this  safe?  One  of  the fundamental  principles  of  valuation  is  that  the  transactions subsequent  to  the  acquisition  should  be  ignored  for determining the market value of acquired lands, as the very

             Civil Appeal Nos.264-270 of  2019 etc.                Wazir & anr. V. State of Haryana

                                      26 acquisition  and  the  consequential  development  would accelerate the overall  development  of  the surrounding areas resulting  in  a  sudden  or  steep  spurt  in  the  prices.  Let  us illustrate. Let us assume there was no development activity in a particular area. The appreciation in market price in such area would be slow and minimal. But if some lands in that area are acquired for  a  residential/commercial/industrial  layout,  there will  be  all  round  development  and  improvement  in  the infrastructure/amenities/ facilities in the next one or two years, as a result of which the surrounding lands will become more valuable.  Even  if  there  is  no  actual  improvement  in infrastructure, the potential and possibility of improvement on account  of  the  proposed  residential/commercial/industrial layout will result in a higher rate of escalation in prices. As a result, if the annual increase in market value was around 10% per  annum  before  the  acquisition,  the  annual  increase  of market value of lands in the areas neighbouring the acquired land, will become much more, say 20% to 30%, or even more on  account  of  the  development/proposed  development. Therefore,  if  the  percentage  to  be  added  with  reference  to previous acquisitions/sale transactions is 10% per annum, the percentage  to  be deducted to  arrive  at  a  market  value with reference to future acquisitions/sale transactions should not be 10% per annum, but much more. The percentage of standard increase becomes  unreliable.  Courts should, therefore, avoid determination  of  market  value  with  reference  to subsequent/future transactions. Even if it becomes inevitable, there should be greater caution in applying the prices fetched for transactions in future. Be that as it may.

17. In this case, the acquisition was in a rural area. There was no  evidence  of  any  out  of  the  ordinary  developments  or increases  in  prices  in  the  area.  We  are  of  the  view  that providing  an  escalation  of  7.5% per  annum over  the  1987 price under  Ext.  15,  would be sufficient  and appropriate  to arrive at the market value of acquired lands.”

             Civil Appeal Nos.264-270 of  2019 etc.                Wazir & anr. V. State of Haryana

                                      27

19. The instant  matter  is  required to  be considered in  the light  of  the

aforesaid principles. The land under present acquisition is an extent of 1500

acres  and  from  6  villages  i.e.  Bas  Kusla,  Bas  Haria,  Dhana,  Manesar,

Naharpur Kasan and Kasan.  If the computation which was accepted by the

Sub-Divisional Officer cum Land Acquisition Collector is considered, the

values of lands in villages Bas Kusla, Bas Haria and Dhana were definitely

on the lower side as compared to the corresponding values from villages like

Manesar, Naharpur Kasan and Kasan.  In the awards, the maximum value of

Rs.10 lakhs per acre was in respect of lands from Manesar while those from

Naharpur Kasan and Kasan were Rs.7,20,000/- and Rs.7,50,000/-per acre

respectively.  As compared to these villages the values in respect of lands in

Bas Kusla, Bas Haria and Dhana were almost less than 50%.  If the extent of

land which was subject matter of acquisition is again considered, more than

⅔rds of lands are from villages Bas Kusla, Bas Haria and Dhana.  The earlier

acquisition of 1994 which was dealt with in Pran Sukh3 was with regard to

four  villages,  including  Manesar,  Naharpur  Kasan  and  Kasan.   In  these

villages, the valuation was found to be more than double as compared to

villages Bas Kusla, Bas Haria and Dhana. The question then arises whether

             Civil Appeal Nos.264-270 of  2019 etc.                Wazir & anr. V. State of Haryana

                                      28 these two sets of villages ought to be given differential treatment or should

they be clubbed and put at the same level.   

20. Recently,  in the case of  Surender Singh v. State of Haryana and

others8 the acquisition was initiated on 11.01.2005 for acquiring an extent of

520 acres of land from 15 villages in the State of Haryana.  Two villages,

namely, Kasan and Dhana out of said 15 villages are also part of the present

acquisition.  Relying on the decision of  Pran Sukh3 where compensation

was  awarded  at  the  rate  of  Rs.20  lakhs  per  acre  and  after  granting  8%

cumulative increase over rates of 1994, the High Court had arrived at the

rate of compensation for the entire extent of 520 acres.  While remanding

the matter back to the High Court for fresh consideration it was observed by

this Court in paras 26 to 29 as under:

“26. The High Court, however, noticed from the facts involved in Pran Sukh3 that the land situated in one Village Kasan along with its some adjoining villages was acquired on 15-11-1994 by  the  State  and  this  Court  determined  the  compensation payable to the landowners of Kasan Village @ Rs 20,00,000 per acre.

27. The High Court felt that Rs 20,000,00 per acre should be taken as the base price for determining the rate of acquired land in question. The High Court perhaps did this after having

8  (2018) 3 SCC 278

             Civil Appeal Nos.264-270 of  2019 etc.                Wazir & anr. V. State of Haryana

                                      29 noticed that some part of the acquired land in these appeals is situated in Kasan Village and, therefore, it is ideal to take the rate of Kasan Village land as basis for determining the rate of acquired land also. The High Court accordingly gave annual increase of 8% to Rs 20,00,000 and worked out the rate at Rs 62,11,700 per acre for the entire acquired land in question by applying one uniform rate.

28. In our considered opinion, the approach of the High Court in the facts of these cases does not appear to be right inasmuch as  the  High  Court  failed  to  take  into  consideration  several material issues which arose in these cases and had a bearing on determination of the fair market rate of the land in question under Section 23 of the Act:

28.1. First, the acquired land, in these cases, was a huge chunk of land measuring around 520 acres, 2 kanals and 13.5 marlas.

28.2. Second,  the  entire  acquired  land  was  not  situated  in Village Kasan but it was spread over in 15 villages as detailed above.

28.3. Third,  there  is  no  evidence  to  show  much  less  any finding of the High Court as to what was the actual distance among  the  15  villages  against  one  another,  the  location, situation/area of  each village,  whether any development had taken place and, if so, its type, nature and when it took place in any of these villages,  the potentiality and the quality of the acquired land situated in each village, its nature and the basis, the market rate of the land situated in each village prior to the date of acquisition or in its near proximity, whether small piece of land or preferably big chunk of land, the actual distance of each village qua any other nearby big developed city, town or a place, whether any activity is being carried on in the nearby areas, their details.

             Civil Appeal Nos.264-270 of  2019 etc.                Wazir & anr. V. State of Haryana

                                      30 28.4. Fourth,  whether  the  acquired  land  in  Pran  Sukh3 in Village Kasan and the acquired land in question are similar in nature or different and, if so, how and on what basis, their total distance, etc.

29. These were,  in  our view,  the issues which had material bearing  while  determining  the  rate  of  the  acquired  land  in question.”

21. In the instant case, the sale deeds Exts.P1, P2 and P3 relied upon by

the landholders pertained to lands from villages Bas Kusla and Dhana and

were of  the year 1997 that  is  after  the acquisition was initiated in  Pran

Sukh3.  The maximum value per acre in these villages was Rs.8 lakhs per

acre and that too with respect to smaller plots.  The sale deeds Exts.P4, P6,

P8  and  PY however  pertained  to  lands  coming  from  villages  Naharpur

Kasan and Kasan. Ext.PY dated 28.04.2004 was much after the acquisition

was initiated in the present case.   Secondly, as found by the High Court in

para 74 of its judgment, there was construction and CLU was also obtained

in relation to land in Ext. PY.  For these reasons the High Court had rightly

ruled  out  said  transaction.   At  the  same time  Ext.P4  was  also  after  the

acquisition in the present case was initiated and pertained to a small plot of

land.    Out of these four sale deeds, Ext.P8 is prior in point of time so far as

the present acquisition is considered and was therefore rightly relied upon as

             Civil Appeal Nos.264-270 of  2019 etc.                Wazir & anr. V. State of Haryana

                                      31 the most appropriate exemplar by the High Court.  If the value in Ext.P8 is

compared with the maximum value under  Exts.P1,  P2 and P3 there is a

marked difference.  This difference is again consistent with the valuation

that  was  accepted  by  the  Sub-Divisional  Officer  cum  Land  Acquisition

Collector.   Since major part of the land under acquisition that is more than

⅔rds  is from villages Bas Kusla, Bas Haria and Dhana, one way of assessing

the correct value of compensation is to treat these three villages on one side

while other three villages on the other side.   

22. However, not only the Reference Court but the High Court on three

different occasions had considered all these villages together and applied the

same  rate  of  compensation.   The  base  rate  was  initially  taken  by  the

Reference Court to be Rs.15 lakhs in terms of the decision of the High Court

in Pran Sukh and later to be Rs.20 lakhs as per the decision of this Court.

The High court on all three occasions had based its assessment taking base

rate in Pran Sukh3 to be the starting point.  We must also note that in Pran

Sukh3, this Court had also applied uniform rate for the entirety of the extent

of  1490  acres  of  land  coming  from  four  different  villages.   It  would

therefore be inappropriate at this stage to make a distinction between these

two  sets  of  villages  for  the  purposes  of  base  rate.   But  this  point  will

             Civil Appeal Nos.264-270 of  2019 etc.                Wazir & anr. V. State of Haryana

                                      32 certainly be of relevance when we consider the ratio of escalation.  The sale

deeds Exts.P1, P2 and P3 indicate that even after the initiation of acquisition

in Pran Sukh3 case which was in 1994, the valuation of the lands was still at

a lower level.  On the other hand, the valuation in respect of Ext. P-8 has

shown some increase.

23. As  regards  lands  in  Naharpur  Kasan  and  Kasan,  Exh.  PY dated

28.04.2004 having been ruled out of consideration, we are now left with 3

sale  instances  namely  Exh.  P4,  P6 and P8.   We may first  consider  pre-

acquisition  instances  namely  Exh.  P6 & P8.   Exh.  P6 dated  16.09.1994

pertained to land having an extent of 12 acres, a fairly large area, where the

value was Rs.20.00 lakhs per acre.  This value is equal to the one which was

granted by this Court in the case of Pran Sukh3 for the acquisition of 1994.

The next sale deed namely Exh.P8 dated 29.09.1996 pertained to very small

piece of land which was less than ½ acre and the value was in the region of

25.00  lakhs  per  acre.   Without  effecting  any  deduction  on  account  of

smallness of the plot and considering the values as they stand, it shows an

increase of 25% over a period of two years, i.e. to say @ 12.5% per annum.

This is one indication as to the nature of increase in price after 1994.

             Civil Appeal Nos.264-270 of  2019 etc.                Wazir & anr. V. State of Haryana

                                      33 We  have  another  sale  instance  namely  Exh.  P4  dated  18.08.2003

which was after a year and half from the dates of Notifications issued under

Section 4 in the present matter.  If the very same rate of increase, though this

Court in the decision in ONGC Ltd. (supra) had ruled that while deducting

from  a  post-acquisition  instance  and  working  backwards  the  rate  of

deduction ought to be higher, is adopted in the present matter, 18.75% will

have to be deducted from the price which was prevalent in August 2003 to

arrive at the corresponding value for the period when the present acquisition

was  initiated.   The  rate  of  Rs.48.366  lakhs  per  acre,  as  available  from

Exh.P4, again without effecting any deductions for the smallness of the plot,

must for the purposes of calculation suffer a deduction of Rs.9.12 lakhs @

18.75%.  We thus arrive at a figure of Rs.37.54 lakhs as the prevalent price

in the year 2002.  This price is arrived at first by considering the rate of

deduction which the value representing the sale instance of  August  2003

must suffer and secondly after effecting appropriate deduction, arrive at the

appropriate value for the present purposes.  We may call this Method no.1.

24. We now consider the matter from a different perspective and take the

rate  awarded  in  Pran  Sukh3 as  the  basis  and  then  try  to  arrive  at  the

appropriate value for the present acquisition.  For this purpose, we may have

             Civil Appeal Nos.264-270 of  2019 etc.                Wazir & anr. V. State of Haryana

                                      34 to determine the rate of increase as shown by the sale deeds on record.  The

acquisition in Pran Sukh3 was of the year 1994 and the award of rate therein

corresponds with the rate available on record through Exh.P6.  We have two

instances of Exh.P8 and P4, which may indicate the rise in values.  However

in both instances, the lands were very small plots i.e. of an extent of less

than half an acre.  If the prices are to be compared in real terms, the values

representing  in  two  sale  deeds  Exh.P4  and  P8  must  be  re-worked  after

effecting appropriate deduction.  Normally the deductions can range from

20% upwards.  We may however take the lowest  of the quotient namely

20%.  On that basis, over a period of two years i.e. between Pran Sukh3 and

Exh.P8 there would be no difference at all and the values would show the

same rate.  If the rate available from Exh.P4 is subjected to deduction of

20%, the corresponding value for a larger extent of land would be Rs.38.93

lakhs  per  acre.   The  difference  between  this  value  and  the  base  value

awarded in Pran Sukh3 (supra) would then show the rise over a period of 7

years.  In other words, the price of Rs.20.00 lakhs rose by Rs.18.93 lakhs in

seven years that is to say it rose by 94.65% giving us an annual average of

13.52%.  This rate represents pure increase on non-cumulative basis.  If we

             Civil Appeal Nos.264-270 of  2019 etc.                Wazir & anr. V. State of Haryana

                                      35 adopt the rate, the base price as awarded in Pran Sukh3 would have risen to

the level of Rs.36.22 lakhs per acre.  We may call this Method no.2.

25. The instances  representing  Exh.  P1,  P2 & P3 as  well  as  P6,  as  a

matter of fact do not show any increase at all as against the base rate as

awarded in Pran Sukh3 and the rise in Exh.P4 & P8 is also not substantial.

Going by the law laid down by this Court on  ONGC Ltd. (supra) in our

considered  view,  the  cumulative  increase  of  8%  over  the  base  rate  as

available in  Pran Sukh3 would give us the correct picture as to the rise in

values in the area comprising of villages Naharpur Kasan and Kasan.  The

tabulated chart in that regard would be as under:

Year Principal Amount (Rs.)

Enhanced Amount (Rs.)

Total amount (Rs.)

1994 20,00,000/- --- 20,00,000/- 1995 20,00,000/- 1,60,000/- 21,60,000/- 1996 21,60,000/- 1,72,800/- 23,32,800/- 1997 23,32,800/- 1,86,624/- 25,19,424/- 1998 25,19,424/- 2,01,554/- 27,20,978/- 1999 27,20,978/- 2,17,678/- 29,38,656/- 2000 29,38,656/- 2,35,092/- 31,73,748/- 2001 31,73,748/- 2,53,900/- 34,27,648/- 2002 34,27,648/- 2,74,212/- 37,01,860/-

These calculations would show the corresponding value for the year

2002 at Rs.37,01,860/- per acre. We may call this as Method no.3.

             Civil Appeal Nos.264-270 of  2019 etc.                Wazir & anr. V. State of Haryana

                                      36

26. If the figures arrived at through these three methods are compared, the

values of Rs.37.54 lakhs per acre under Method no.1, Rs.36.22 lakhs under

Method no.2 and Rs.37.01 lakhs under Method no.3 are quite comparable.

If the highest of these three figures is taken, the appropriate value for the

lands in Naharpur Kasan and Kasan would be Rs.37.54 lakhs per acre in the

year 2002.

27. The values in other three villages namely Bas Kusla, Bas Haria and

Dhana have not shown any such increase.  Apart from Exh.P1, P2 and P3,

nothing has been placed on record, insofar as said villages are concerned.

As stated herein above, even for these villages we may adopt the base rate of

Rs.20.00 lakhs for the year 1994 and then consider the appropriate increase.

As the sale deeds dated Exh. P1, P2 and P3 in respect of lands coming from

these villages have not shown any increase at all, by way of rough and ready

method we may adopt  half  the rise  as  shown in the lands  coming from

villages Naharpur Kasan and Kasan.  Half the difference between Rs.20.00

lakhs  as  the  base  rate  and  Rs.37.54  lakhs  adopted  for  the  villages  of

Naharpur Kasan, Kasan and Manewsar would mean difference of Rs.8.77

lakhs over the base figure of  Rs.20.00 lakhs as awarded in  Pran Sukh3.

             Civil Appeal Nos.264-270 of  2019 etc.                Wazir & anr. V. State of Haryana

                                      37 Thus, in our considered view, the market value of lands from villages Bas

Kusla, Bas Haria and Dhana in 2002 must be at Rs.28.77 lakhs per acre.

28. In respect of lands coming from village Manesar, the High Court had

granted 50% rise over and above the market value in respect  of  villages

Naharpur Kasan and Kasan.  The increase to that extent was well justified as

the  lands  in  village  Manesar  are  abutting  National  Highway  No.8  with

excellent  commercial  potential.   The  grant  of  50% rise  is  not  seriously

objected by the State and as such we confirm the same.  Thus 50% rise over

the figures as applicable to villages Naharpur Kasan and Kasan would lead

us  to  the  market  value  in  respect  of  village  Manesar  which  would  be

Rs.56.31 lakhs per acre.

29. We,  however,  find  it  difficult  to  accept  grant  of  further  30%  as

severance charges to M/s. Kohli Holdings Private Limited.  Normally the

additional component of compensation in terms of Section 23(1)(thirdly) of

the  Act  is  granted  when,  a  landholder  suffers  damage  as  a  result  of

acquisition  to  the  extent  that  the  holding  that  he  is  left  with  stands

comparatively diminished in terms of quality and value.  For instance, if a

railway track is to be built through an agricultural land held by a person,

             Civil Appeal Nos.264-270 of  2019 etc.                Wazir & anr. V. State of Haryana

                                      38 leaving two different halves with him, it would be impossible for him to

carry on agricultural operations at an optimum level.  This would lead to

reduction in the value of the halves that he is left with.  On the other hand, in

a  case  where  part  of  the  holding  is  acquired  for  which  appropriate

commercial value is awarded, the rest of the value of the land will not stand

diminished  in  terms  of  commercial  potential.   On  the  other  hand,  the

potential of the remainder of the land would also increase drastically as the

development would be right in the neighbourhood, thus giving substantial

benefit to the landholder.  In our view, the High Court was not justified in

granting  further  compensation  of  30%  to  M/s.  Kohli  Holdings  Private

Limited on account of severance charges.  We, therefore, set aside that part

and hold that no severance charges need be awarded to M/s. Kohli Holdings

Private Limited.

30. In the circumstances, we direct:

a) In respect of lands under acquisition from villages Naharpur Kasan

and  Kasan  the  market  value  shall  be  Rs.37.54  lakhs  per  acre.

Additionally, all statutory benefits would be payable.

             Civil Appeal Nos.264-270 of  2019 etc.                Wazir & anr. V. State of Haryana

                                      39 b) In respect of lands under acquisition from villages Bas Kusla, Bas

Haria and Dhana the market value shall be Rs.28.77 lakhs per acre.

Additionally, all statutory benefits would be payable. c) In respect of lands from village Manesar the market value shall be

Rs.56.31 lakhs per acre. Additionally, all statutory benefits would

be payable. d) M/s. Kohli Holdings Private Limited shall not be entitled to any

severance charges.

31. The appeals  preferred  by HSIIDC and the  State  of  Haryana stand

allowed to the aforesaid extent.  The appeals preferred by all the landholders

including M/s. Kohli Holdings Private Limited stand dismissed.  No costs.

……..…..………..…..……..……J.                                                                              (Uday Umesh Lalit)

     .....……..………….……………J.                             (Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud)

New Delhi, January 11, 2019.