# Ram Kishan (Since Deceased) Through His Lrs Etc v. State of Haryana & Ors

- **Citation:** 2025 INSC 441
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2025-04-03
- **Bench:** B.R. Gavai, K.V. Viswanathan
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/ram-kishan-since-deceased-through-his-lrs-etc-v-state-of-haryana-ors-38511
- **Pages:** 31

## Headnote

Whether the Appellants, landowners of Village Dharuhera, Haryana,
whose lands were acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894,
by a notification dated 12.12.2008 are entitled to compensation at
a higher rate-on par with the compensation awarded for similarly
situated lands in adjoining villages, acquired under a later notification
dated 13.05.2010, where the compensation was enhanced vide
judgments in BESCO and M/s Habitat Estates.
Headnotes†
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (LA Act) - Land acquired for
development and utilization of institutional sector in Dharuhera
village, Haryana - Market value determined by Land Acquisition
Collector (LAC) challenged - Reference Court enhanced the
compensation - High Court vide impugned judgment, for
reasons different from those recorded by Reference Court,
maintained award as ordered by Reference Court - Impugned
judgment set aside - Reasoning given by High Court to rely
only on one exemplar not satisfactory - Lands acquired in
adjoining villages are comparable - Compensation enhanced -
Principle of de-escalation applied - Appeals partly allowed.
Appellants' land acquired for development and utilization of
Institutional Sector 5A under the Haryana Urban Development
Authority Act, 1977 in Dharuhera village in Haryana - Section 4,
LA Act, notification issued on 12.12.2008 - Section 6, LA Act,
declaration issued on 11.12.2009 - LAC determined market
value at Rs. 21,00,000/- per acre - Appellants filed reference
for appropriate enhancement under LA Act, Section 18 -
Reference Court enhanced the compensation, relying on award
in acquisition vide notification dated 13.05.2010 in adjoining
village of Malpura for development of industrial sectors 15,
16 and 17 of Dharuhera - Considering the difference of 17
* Author
2564
[2025] 4 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
months in date of two notifications, Reference Court applied deescalation of 12% and awarded compensation of Rs. 55,71,010/-
per acre - High Court in impugned judgment found that
Reference Court erred in placing reliance on the award in
Malpura village as 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 - Reference Court also faulted for not considering
sale deeds produced by parties which reflected a price lesser
than the amount offered by the LAC - High Court relied on
one exemplar Exh. PW4/D dated 02.05.2006 and rejected the
other sale deeds - Confirmed judgment of Reference Court
for reasons different from the one adduced by the Reference
Court - Aggrieved landowners filed Appeals:
Held: Lands of villages Malpura and Kapriwas acquired under the
notification of 18.05.2010 and lands of Appellants herein acquired by
notification of 12.12.2008 - Purpose of acquisition in both matters
development and utilization for sectors in Dharuhera (institutional
and industrial respectively) - Villages are adjoining - Acquired lands
under notifications of 12.12.2008 and 13.05.2010 on two sides of the
NH-8 Jaipur-Delhi Highway - Vast difference in prices in exemplar of
sale deeds relied upon by the Appellants and the State - High Court
rejected all, except Exh. PW4/D - Reasoning given by High Court
to only rely on PW4/D not satisfactory - Reasoning given by High
Court that no evidence to prove that the acquired lands in village
Malpura was comparable with the then geographical location, and
other factors of the Appellants' lands bereft of merit - Map indicates
the proximity of the lands - Reference Court rightly recorded that
villages were adjoining and the acquisition was all part of development
of sectors in Dharuhera - Reliance to be placed on the value of the
land arrived at in BESCO wherein compensation awarded with respect
to lands acquired in village Malpura vide notification dated 13.05.2010
and village Kapriwas was enhanced - Rs. 1,49,14,975 per acre to
be treated as base value for the Appellants' lands - Appropriate
percentage

## Text

_Characters 0–39,964 of 68,679. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39964 for what follows._

[2025] 4 S.C.R. 2563 : 2025 INSC 441
Ram Kishan (Since Deceased) Through His Lrs Etc.
v.
State of Haryana & Ors.
(Civil Appeal No(s). 4772-4773 of 2025)
03 April 2025
[B.R. Gavai and K.V. Viswanathan,* JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
Whether the Appellants, landowners of Village Dharuhera, Haryana,
whose lands were acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894,
by a notification dated 12.12.2008 are entitled to compensation at
a higher rate-on par with the compensation awarded for similarly
situated lands in adjoining villages, acquired under a later notification
dated 13.05.2010, where the compensation was enhanced vide
judgments in BESCO and M/s Habitat Estates.
Headnotes†
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (LA Act) - Land acquired for
development and utilization of institutional sector in Dharuhera
village, Haryana - Market value determined by Land Acquisition
Collector (LAC) challenged - Reference Court enhanced the
compensation - High Court vide impugned judgment, for
reasons different from those recorded by Reference Court,
maintained award as ordered by Reference Court - Impugned
judgment set aside - Reasoning given by High Court to rely
only on one exemplar not satisfactory - Lands acquired in
adjoining villages are comparable - Compensation enhanced -
Principle of de-escalation applied - Appeals partly allowed.
Appellants' land acquired for development and utilization of
Institutional Sector 5A under the Haryana Urban Development
Authority Act, 1977 in Dharuhera village in Haryana - Section 4,
LA Act, notification issued on 12.12.2008 - Section 6, LA Act,
declaration issued on 11.12.2009 - LAC determined market
value at Rs. 21,00,000/- per acre - Appellants filed reference
for appropriate enhancement under LA Act, Section 18 -
Reference Court enhanced the compensation, relying on award
in acquisition vide notification dated 13.05.2010 in adjoining
village of Malpura for development of industrial sectors 15,
16 and 17 of Dharuhera - Considering the difference of 17
* Author
2564
[2025] 4 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
months in date of two notifications, Reference Court applied deescalation of 12% and awarded compensation of Rs. 55,71,010/-
per acre - High Court in impugned judgment found that
Reference Court erred in placing reliance on the award in
Malpura village as 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 - Reference Court also faulted for not considering
sale deeds produced by parties which reflected a price lesser
than the amount offered by the LAC - High Court relied on
one exemplar Exh. PW4/D dated 02.05.2006 and rejected the
other sale deeds - Confirmed judgment of Reference Court
for reasons different from the one adduced by the Reference
Court - Aggrieved landowners filed Appeals:
Held: Lands of villages Malpura and Kapriwas acquired under the
notification of 18.05.2010 and lands of Appellants herein acquired by
notification of 12.12.2008 - Purpose of acquisition in both matters
development and utilization for sectors in Dharuhera (institutional
and industrial respectively) - Villages are adjoining - Acquired lands
under notifications of 12.12.2008 and 13.05.2010 on two sides of the
NH-8 Jaipur-Delhi Highway - Vast difference in prices in exemplar of
sale deeds relied upon by the Appellants and the State - High Court
rejected all, except Exh. PW4/D - Reasoning given by High Court
to only rely on PW4/D not satisfactory - Reasoning given by High
Court that no evidence to prove that the acquired lands in village
Malpura was comparable with the then geographical location, and
other factors of the Appellants' lands bereft of merit - Map indicates
the proximity of the lands - Reference Court rightly recorded that
villages were adjoining and the acquisition was all part of development
of sectors in Dharuhera - Reliance to be placed on the value of the
land arrived at in BESCO wherein compensation awarded with respect
to lands acquired in village Malpura vide notification dated 13.05.2010
and village Kapriwas was enhanced - Rs. 1,49,14,975 per acre to
be treated as base value for the Appellants' lands - Appropriate
percentage of de-escalation and appropriate reduction for change
of land use charges to be provided for - De-escalation @ 12% p.a.
for one year and for remaining five months an additional 6% on the
base value - Adjusting for change of land use charges by deducting
Rs. 5 lakh - Figure of Rs. 1,18,37,668/- as the base value arrived at
on which statutory benefits under Section 23(1-A), 23(2) and 28, LA
Act in accordance with law to be paid after deducting the amounts
already paid to the landowners.
[2025] 4 S.C.R.
2565
Ram Kishan (Since Deceased) Through His Lrs Etc. v.
 State of Haryana & Ors.
Eleven appeals pertain to acquisition pursuant to notification
dated 13.05.2010 under Section 4, LA Act, and notification dated
12.05.2011 under Section 6, LA Act - Lands in village Malpura
and Kapriwas - Same directly covered by judgments in BESCO
and M/s Habitat Estates - Land losers entitled to same benefits -
However, not entitled to interest for the period of delay in filing/
delay in refiling after delayed filing of the appeal(s).
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Principle of de-escalation and
escalation applied to fix compensation:
Held: Principle of de-escalation to be applied while determining base
value of award - Peerappa Hanmantha Harijan, Chandrashekar
and Sardar Singh referred to.
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Determination of compensation in
each case depends upon the nature of land and the evidence
adduced in each case - Compensation cannot be determined
by blindly following the previous award/judgment:
Held: Reliance placed on Manoj Kumar in which it was held that
the 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 - Not proper to ignore the evidence adduced in
the case at hand - Compensation cannot be determined by blindly
following the previous award/judgment - Manoj Kumar did not hold
that awards in other cases which are relevant cannot be relied upon
at all - Such awards will be relevant as a piece of evidence and not
be conclusive in nature - Even before its notification as a municipal
area, prices in Dharuhera, as evident from the exemplars cited by the
land losers, 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 test laid down in Manoj Kumar satisfied - Reliance can safely
be placed on the award in BESCO to arrive at base value.
Potentiality Factor to be considered while assessing market
value:
Held: Potentiality is the use to which the land is put to use or
reasonably capable of being put to use - Potentiality of the land is
to be taken into consideration while assessing the market value -
Acquired lands surrounded by Modern Senior Secondary School,
Huda Sector 4 residential colony, bus stand, commercial shops,
2566
[2025] 4 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
Bajrang Nagar residential colony, Parshavnath residential flats, M2K
city, Bhagat Singh residential colony and other developed areas -
Cannot be disputed that acquired lands had immense potentiality
and could have been put to multifarious use.
Case Law Cited
BESCO Ltd. v. The State of Haryana and Ors., Civil Appeal No.
5376 of 2023 - relied on.
M/s Habitat Estates Pvt. Ltd. v. The State of Haryana & Ors., Civil
Appeal No. 2237 of 2024; New Okhla Industrial Development
Authority v. Harnand Singh (Deceased) through Lrs. and Ors.,
2024 SCC OnLine SC 1691; Mehrawal Khewaji Trust (Registered),
Faridkot and Ors. v. State of Punjab and Ors. [2012] 4 SCR 24 :
(2012) 5 SCC 432; Peerappa Hanmantha Harijan (Dead) by Legal
Representatives and Others v. State of Karnataka and Another [2015]
9 SCR 498 : (2015) 10 SCC 469; Chandrashekar (dead) by LRs and
Others v. Land Acquisition Officer and Another [2011] 15 SCR 414 :
(2012) 1 SCC 390; Sardara Singh and Others v. Land Acquisition
Collector, Improvement Trust, Rupnagar and Others (2020) 14 SCC
483; Bijender and Others v. State of Haryana and Another (2018)
11 SCC 180; Vithal Rao and Another v. Special Land Acquisition
Officer [2017] 6 SCR 335 : (2017) 8 SCC 558; Ravinder Narain v.
Union of India [2003] 2 SCR 424 : (2003) 4 SCC 481; Atma Singh v.
State of Haryana [2007] 12 SCR 1120 : (2008) 2 SCC 568; U.P.
Awas Evam Vikash Parishad v. Asha Ram (Dead) through legal
representatives and Others [2021] 3 SCR 751 : (2021) 17 SCC 289;
Nagpur Improvement Trust & Anr v. Vithal Rao & Anr. [1973] 3 SCR
39 : (1973) 1 SCC 500; Manoj Kumar and Others v. State of Haryana
and Others [2017] 8 SCR 997 : (2018) 13 SCC 96 - referred to.
List of Acts
Land Acquisition Act, 1894; Haryana Urban Development Authority
Act, 1977.
List of Keywords
Land Acquisition; De-escalation; Enhancement; Potentiality factor;
Base value.
Case Arising From
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No(s).
4772-4773 of 2025
[2025] 4 S.C.R.
2567
Ram Kishan (Since Deceased) Through His Lrs Etc. v.
 State of Haryana & Ors.
From the Judgment and Order dated 20.09.2022 of the High Court
of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in RFA No. 4240 and 3508
of 2019
With
Civil Appeal No(s). 4774, 4775, 4776, 4777, 4778-4782, 4783,
4784, 4785, 4786, 4787, 4788-4793, 4794, 4795, 4796, 4797 and
4798 of 2025
Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Appellants:
Ms. Kavita Wadia, S.B. Upadhyay, Gagan Gupta, Sr. Advs., Varun
Kumar, R. C. Kaushik, Sureshan P., Shivam Yadav, Rohan Yadav,
Tushar Mahajan, Ajit Kumar Ekka, Nishant Kumar, Ananta Prasad
Mishra.
Advs. for the Respondents:
Alok Sangwan, Sr. AAG., Akshay Amritanshu, Ms. Pragya
Upadhyay, Ms. Drishti Saraf, Ms. Swati Mishra, Sumit Kumar
Sharma, Rajat Sangwan.
Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court
Judgment
K.V. Viswanathan, J.
1.
Delay in filing/refiling the Special Leave Petition(s) is condoned.
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
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
2568
[2025] 4 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
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
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 interest for the
period of delay in filing/delay in refiling after delayed filing of the
appeal(s).
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
[2025] 4 S.C.R.
2569
Ram Kishan (Since Deceased) Through His Lrs Etc. v.
 State of Haryana & Ors.
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. 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
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
2570
[2025] 4 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
Bhiwadi; that the acquired land is situated on the main road of Sectors
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 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
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
[2025] 4 S.C.R.
2571
Ram Kishan (Since Deceased) Through His Lrs Etc. v.
 State of Haryana & Ors.
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.
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 SixtySeven 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
2572
[2025] 4 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
of 18 petitions are for the purpose of 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 be applied in
the present matter for time gap of one year & five months
(17 months) in the two notifications.
[2025] 4 S.C.R.
2573
Ram Kishan (Since Deceased) Through His Lrs Etc. v.
 State of Haryana & Ors.
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 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
2574
[2025] 4 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
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:-
"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 (theeastern 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
[2025] 4 S.C.R.
2575
Ram Kishan (Since Deceased) Through His Lrs Etc. v.
 State of Haryana & Ors.
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 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
2576
[2025] 4 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
land losers and dismissed the cross objection of the beneficiary. The
same 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 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).
[2025] 4 S.C.R.
2577
Ram Kishan (Since Deceased) Through His Lrs Etc. v.
 State of Haryana & Ors.
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., DelhiJaipur 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, 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.
2578
[2025] 4 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
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; 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 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
[2025] 4 S.C.R.
2579
Ram Kishan (Since Deceased) Through His Lrs Etc. v.
 State of Haryana & Ors.
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.
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. 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
2580
[2025] 4 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
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)
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.