# WAZIR & ANR v. STATE OF HARYANA

- **Citation:** [2019] 2 S.C.R. 571
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2019-01-11
- **Case number:** Civil Appeal Nos. 264-270 of 2019
- **Bench:** Uday Umesh Lalit, Dr. Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/wazir-anr-v-state-of-haryana-33509
- **Pages:** 30

## Headnote

Land Acquisition Act, 1894:
s. 23 - Compensation - Claim of - Fixation of market value
of the acquired land - On facts, in the year 2002, around 1500
acres of land acquired from different villages for public purpose of
development of Industrial Township, Manesar, Gurgaon by three
notifications - Award of compensation to land owners for different
types of lands - Two sets of villages given differential treatment -
Challenge to, by land owners - Reference Court relying on the
decision in Pran Sukh case enhanced the compensation - Thereafter,
in the pending applications, Reference Court enhanced the
compensation at the rate of 12% p.a. taking the base rate to be Rs.
20 lakhs per acre as on 1994, in terms with the Pran Sukh case -
Compensation awarded at the same rate for all kinds of land - In
appeal, the High Court relying on the exemplar, computed the figures
by giving cumulative enhancement at the rates of 12% and 15%
over the base rate of Rs.20 lakhs per acre and applying cut of 10%
and 20% - Compensation assessed at Rs.41.40 lakhs per acre in
respect of lands acquired in villages - Compensation in village
Manesar assessed after giving 50% enhancement at Rs.62.10 lakhs
per acre - As regards land held by K additional component of 30%
also awarded on account of severance charges, over and above
the rate of Rs.62.10 lakhs per acre - On appeal, held: On basis of
documents on record, sale deeds, three methods-Method no.1,
Method no.2 and Method no.3, the market value for the lands in
Naharpur Kasan and Kasan would be Rs. 39,54,666/- per acre,
the market value of lands from villages Bas Kusla, Bas Haria and
Dhana would be Rs. 29,77,333/- per acre and in respect of village
Manesar, the market value would be Rs. 59,31,999/- per acre - In
addition all statutory benefits would be payable - However, K would
not be entitled to any severance charges.
*With modifications as set out in Para 9 of Order dated 08.02.2019 passed in M.A. No.
299 of 2019 in CA Nos. 264-270 of 2019.
[2019] 2 S.C.R. 571
571
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
572 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 2 S.C.R.
Disposing of the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1.1 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 Sukh's case. 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 instant case.
Secondly, as found by the High Court, 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 instant 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 instant acquisition is considered and was
therefore rightly relied upon as 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 2/3rds 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. 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

## Text

_Characters 0–39,724 of 67,329. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39724 for what follows._

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
571
WAZIR & ANR.
v.
STATE OF HARYANA
(Civil Appeal Nos. 264-270 of 2019)
JANUARY 11, 2019*
[UDAY UMESH LALIT AND
DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, JJ.]
Land Acquisition Act, 1894:
s. 23 - Compensation - Claim of - Fixation of market value
of the acquired land - On facts, in the year 2002, around 1500
acres of land acquired from different villages for public purpose of
development of Industrial Township, Manesar, Gurgaon by three
notifications - Award of compensation to land owners for different
types of lands - Two sets of villages given differential treatment -
Challenge to, by land owners - Reference Court relying on the
decision in Pran Sukh case enhanced the compensation - Thereafter,
in the pending applications, Reference Court enhanced the
compensation at the rate of 12% p.a. taking the base rate to be Rs.
20 lakhs per acre as on 1994, in terms with the Pran Sukh case -
Compensation awarded at the same rate for all kinds of land - In
appeal, the High Court relying on the exemplar, computed the figures
by giving cumulative enhancement at the rates of 12% and 15%
over the base rate of Rs.20 lakhs per acre and applying cut of 10%
and 20% - Compensation assessed at Rs.41.40 lakhs per acre in
respect of lands acquired in villages - Compensation in village
Manesar assessed after giving 50% enhancement at Rs.62.10 lakhs
per acre - As regards land held by K additional component of 30%
also awarded on account of severance charges, over and above
the rate of Rs.62.10 lakhs per acre - On appeal, held: On basis of
documents on record, sale deeds, three methods-Method no.1,
Method no.2 and Method no.3, the market value for the lands in
Naharpur Kasan and Kasan would be Rs. 39,54,666/- per acre,
the market value of lands from villages Bas Kusla, Bas Haria and
Dhana would be Rs. 29,77,333/- per acre and in respect of village
Manesar, the market value would be Rs. 59,31,999/- per acre - In
addition all statutory benefits would be payable - However, K would
not be entitled to any severance charges.
*With modifications as set out in Para 9 of Order dated 08.02.2019 passed in M.A. No.
299 of 2019 in CA Nos. 264-270 of 2019.
[2019] 2 S.C.R. 571
571
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
572 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 2 S.C.R.
Disposing of the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1.1 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 Sukh's case. 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 instant case.
Secondly, as found by the High Court, 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 instant 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 instant acquisition is considered and was
therefore rightly relied upon as 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 2/3rds 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. 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's case 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 Sukh's
case to be the starting point. The sale deeds Exts.P1, P2 and P3
indicate that even after the initiation of acquisition in Pran Sukh's
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. [Para 21, 22][594-F-G; 595-A-D, F]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
573
1.2 As regards lands in Naharpur Kasan and Kasan, Exh.
PY dated 28.04.2004 having been ruled out of consideration, there
are 3 sale instances namely Exh. P4, P6 and 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 Sukh's case 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 1⁄2 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. There is 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 instant matter. If the very same rate of increase, though this
Court in the decision in ONGC Ltd.'s case 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 instant
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.48,66,666/- 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%. A figure of Rs. 39,54,666/- per acre is arrived
at 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. This is Method no.1.
[Para 23][595-G; 596-A-D]
1.3 The acquisition in Pran Sukh's case was of the year
1994 and the award of rate therein corresponds with the rate
available on record through Exh.P6. Exh.P8 and P4, 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
WAZIR & ANR. v. STATE OF HARYANA
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
574 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 2 S.C.R.
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. The lowest of the quotient namely 20% is taken.
On that basis, over a period of two years i.e. between Pran Sukh's
case 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
Sukh's case 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 an annual average of 13.52%. This rate represents pure
increase on non-cumulative basis. If the rate is adopted, the
base price as awarded in Pran Sukh's case would have risen
to the level of Rs.36.22 lakhs per acre. This is Method no.2.
[Para 24][596-F-G; 597-A-C]
1.4 The instances representing Exh. P1, P2 & P3 as well
as P6, do not show any increase at all as against the base rate as
awarded in Pran Sukh's case and the rise in Exh.P4 & P8 is also
not substantial. Going by the law laid down by this Court on ONGC
Ltd's case the cumulative increase of 8% over the base rate as
available in Pran Sukh's case would give the correct picture as to
the rise in values in the area comprising of villages Naharpur
Kasan and Kasan. These calculations would show the
corresponding value for the year 2002 at Rs.37,01,860/- per acre.
This is Method no.3. If the figures arrived at through these three
methods are compared, the values of Rs. 39,54,666/- 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. Taking
the highest of these three figures, the appropriate value for the
lands in Naharpur Kasan and Kasan would be Rs. 39,54,666/-
per acre in the year 2002. Additionally all statutory benefits would
be payable.[Paras 25, 26, 30][597-D, G; 598-A-B]
1.5 The values in other three villages namely Bas Kusla,
Bas Haria and Dhana have not shown any such increase. Apart
from sale deeds nothing has been placed on record, insofar as
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
575
said villages are concerned. Even for these villages the base rate
of Rs.20.00 lakhs may be adopted for the year 1994 and then
consider the appropriate increase. As the sale deeds in respect
of lands coming from these villages have not shown any increase
at all, by way of rough and ready method half the rise as shown in
the lands coming from villages Naharpur Kasan and Kasan may
be adopted. Half the difference between Rs.20.00 lakhs as the
base rate and Rs.39,54,666/- per acre adopted for the villages of
Naharpur Kasan, Kasan and Manesar would mean difference
of Rs. 9,77,333/- over the base figure of Rs.20.00 lakhs as awarded
in Pran Sukh's case. Thus, the market value of lands from
villages Bas Kusla, Bas Haria and Dhana in 2002 must be at
Rs. 29,77,333/- per acre. Additionally all statutory benefits would
be payable. [Para 27, 30][598-C-D; 599-F]
1.6 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 the same is confirmed.
Thus, 50% rise over the figures as applicable to villages
Naharpur Kasan and Kasan would lead to the market value in
respect of village Manesar which would be Rs. 59,31,999/- per
acre. Additionally all statutory benefits would be payable.
[Paras 28, 30][598-E-F; 599-F]
1.7 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,
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
WAZIR & ANR. v. STATE OF HARYANA
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
576 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 2 S.C.R.
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. The High Court was not
justified in granting further compensation of 30% to M/s. K
Private Limited on account of severance charges. Therefore, no
severance charges need be awarded to M/s. K Private Limited.
[Para 29][599-A-D]
Haryana State Industrial Development Corporation v.
Pran Sukh & Ors. (2010) 11 SCC 175 ; Haryana State
Industrial Development Corporation Limited v. UDAL
and others (2013) 14 SCC 506 ; Satish Kumar Gupta
and others v. State of Haryana and others (2017) 4 SCC
760 : [2017] 1 SCR 767 ; General Manager, Oil and
Natural Gas Corporation Limited. v. Rameshbhai
Jivanbhai Patel and Another (2008) 14 SCC 745 :
[2008] 11 SCR 927 ; Lal Chand v. Union of India and
another (2009) 15 SCC 769 : [2009] 13 SCR 622 ;
Surender Singh v. State of Haryana and others (2018)
3 SCC 278 : [2018] 1 SCR 581 - referred to.
Case Law Reference
(2010) 11 SCC 175
referred to
Para 7
(2013) 14 SCC 506
referred to
Para 9
[2017] 1 SCR 767
referred to
Para 10
[2008] 11 SCR 927
referred to
Para 15
[2009] 13 SCR 622
referred to
Para 16
[2018] 1 SCR 581
referred to
Para 20
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 264270 of 2019.
From the Judgment and Order dated 09.03.2018 of the High
Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in R.F.A. Nos. 4158, 4177,
4674, 4235, 4236, 4740 of 2010 and 6957 of 2011.
WITH
Civil Appeal Nos. 338, 333-335, 336-337, 272-332, 339, 271,
340-341, 342, 593-617 and 343-592 of 2019, S.L.P. (Civil) Nos. 43544358 of 2019.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
577
Alok Sangwan, AAG, Abhinash Jain, Asst. AG, Dhruv Mehta,
Ms. Kiran Suri, R. S. Suri, Sr. Advs., Jasbir Singh Malik, B. P. Singh
Dhakre, Shakti Dhakre, Ms. Usha Nandini. V, Dr. Monika Gusain, Sunny
Kadiyan, Siddharth Batra, Ravinder Kumar, Vishwajeet Arora,
Ms. Garima Sehgal, S. K. Sinha, Rattan Lal, Ms. Seema Kashyap S. J.
Amith, Dr. (Mrs.) Vipin Gupta, Ms. Aishwarya Kumar, Rohit K.
Aggarwal, Aditya Giri, Abhishek Singh, Anil Mittal, Vibhuti Sushant Gupta,
Satish K. Gupta, Ram Naresh Yadav, Advs. for the appearing parties.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
UDAY UMESH LALIT, J. 1. Leave granted.
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
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.
1 Haryana State Industrial and Infrastructure Development Corporation
WAZIR & ANR. v. STATE OF HARYANA
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
578 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 2 S.C.R.
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)-cumLand Acquisition Collector, Gurgaon on 22.07.2003 and the
compensation awarded to the land owners for different types of
lands was as under:
The extent of lands under various categories in the aforesaid
villages was set out in the award as under:
(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:
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
128718
83-11
09-07
1380
16
Kinds of Land and rates per acre
Village
Chahi
Banjar
Gair Mumkin
Kasan
5,25,000/-
5,00,000/-
7,50,000
Bas
Kusla
2,25,000/-
1,75,000/-
3,60,000/-
Naharpur
Kasan
5,25,000/-
4,00,000/-
7,20,000/-
Manesar
7,00,000/-
7,00,000/-
10,00,000/-
Kinds of land and rates per acre
Village
Chahi
Gair Mumkin
Kasan
5,25,000/-
7,50,000/-
Bas Kusla
2,25,000/-
3,60,000/-
Bas Haria
2,25,000/-
3,60,000/-
Dhana
2,25,000/-
3,60,000/-
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
579
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
The extent of lands under various categories in the aforesaid
villages was set out in the award as under:
(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:
The extent of lands under various categories in the aforesaid
villages was set out in the award as under:
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
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/-
Kasan
5,25,000/-
7,50,000/-
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
WAZIR & ANR. v. STATE OF HARYANA
[UDAY UMESH LALIT, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
580 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 2 S.C.R.
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 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 Court2 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
2 the Additional District Judge, Gurgaon
3 (2010) 11 SCC 175 (Haryana State Industrial Development Corporation v. Pran Sukh
& Ors.)
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
581
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.
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 PhaseIII, the same was issued on 07.03.2002. For Phase-II, the total
acquired land was 1380 kanals and 16 marlas, whereas for PhaseIII, 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 PhaseV 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.
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
WAZIR & ANR. v. STATE OF HARYANA
[UDAY UMESH LALIT, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
582 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 2 S.C.R.
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. 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
4 (2013) 14 SCC 506
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
583
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 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
WAZIR & ANR. v. STATE OF HARYANA
[UDAY UMESH LALIT, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
584 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 2 S.C.R.
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 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 postacquisition 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 :-
Exhibits
Date
Area/
Village
Sale
Consideration
in Rs.
Value
per
acre in R s.
Ex.P1
12.06.1997 2 kanals /
Bas Kusla
2,00,000/-
8 lakhs
Ex.P2
23.06.1997 1 kanal 10 marlas
/ B as Kusla
4,50,000/-
8 lakhs
Ex.P3
18.09.1997
18 kan als/ D hana
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
11⁄2
marla/ Naharpur
Kasan
3,53,000/-
25 lakhs
Ex.PY
28.04.2004 96
kanals
13
marlas/ Naharpur
Kasan
13.62 crores
1.13 crores
5 (2017) 4 SCC 760
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
585
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, 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:-
"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:-
Y ea r
P rin c ip a l
A m o u n t (R s .)
E n h a n ce d
A m o u n t (R s. )
T o ta l a m o u n t
( R s .)
1 9 9 4
2 0 ,0 0 ,0 0 0 .0 0
- -
2 0 , 0 0 ,0 0 0 . 0 0
1 9 9 5
2 0 ,0 0 ,0 0 0 .0 0
2 ,4 0 , 0 0 0 .0 0
2 2 , 4 0 ,0 0 0 . 0 0
1 9 9 6
2 2 ,4 0 ,0 0 0 .0 0
2 ,6 8 , 8 0 0 .0 0
2 5 , 0 8 ,8 0 0 . 0 0
1 9 9 7
2 5 ,0 8 ,8 0 0 .0 0
3 ,0 1 , 0 5 6 .0 0
2 8 , 0 9 ,8 5 6 . 0 0
1 9 9 8
2 8 ,0 9 ,8 5 6 .0 0
3 ,3 7 , 1 8 2 .7 2
3 1 , 4 7 ,0 3 8 . 7 2
1 9 9 9
3 1 ,4 7 ,0 3 8 .7 2
3 ,7 7 , 6 4 4 .6 5
3 5 , 2 4 ,6 8 3 . 3 7
2 0 0 0
3 5 ,2 4 ,6 8 3 .3 7
4 ,2 2 , 9 6 2 .0 0
3 9 , 4 7 ,6 4 5 . 3 7
2 0 0 1
3 9 ,4 7 ,6 4 5 .3 7
4 ,7 3 , 7 1 7 .4 4
4 4 , 2 1 ,3 6 2 . 8 1
WAZIR & ANR. v. STATE OF HARYANA
[UDAY UMESH LALIT, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
586 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 2 S.C.R.
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/-
96. Similarly, if the enhancement is to be granted @ 15% on Rs.20
lakhs from 1994 to 2001, it works out as under:-
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:-
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/-
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
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
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
587
98. For enhancement @ 15% on Rs.25 lakhs from 1996 to 2001,
the amount works out as under:-
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% 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
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
WAZIR & ANR. v. STATE OF HARYANA
[UDAY UMESH LALIT, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
588 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 2 S.C.R.
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.
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 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 another7. 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
6 (2008) 14 SCC 745
7 (2009) 15 SCC 769
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
589
judgment4.