M/S Acquainted Realtors Llp Etc. Etc. v. State of Haryana & Others
UDAY UMESH LALIT, J.
1. Delay condoned. Leave granted in all matters.
2. These appeals challenge the judgment and order date 01.06.2018
passed by the High Court 1 in RFA No.384 of 2013 (O&M) [Tej Singh
and another v. State of Haryana and others], based on which the individual
appeals were disposed of.
3. The facts leading to the instant appeals, in brief, are as under:-
A) The proce edings for acquis ition of la nds we re initia te d vide
Notification dated 27.09.2005 issued under Section 4 of the Act2 for the
purpose of setting up Industrial Model Township, Phase-VI, Manesar,
Gurgaon for the development of an integrated complex for indust rial,
commercial, recreational and other public utilities.
B) The aforesaid Notification was followed by Declaration dated
02.06.2006 issued under Section 6 of the Act. The lands sought to be
acquired, admeasured 465 acres 5 Kanals 7 Marlas, the details of which
as tabulated by the High Court were:-
1 The High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh
2 The Land Acquisition Act, 1894
M/S ACQUAINTED REALTORS LLP ETC. ETC. v. STATE OF
HARYANA & OTHERS
“Scheme Villages Area
Kanal Marla
Transport Hub Bas Khusla 427 15
Bas Huria 177 8
Dhana 961 13
Kasan 458 10
Bas Lambi 829 18
Transport Hub-II Dhana 509 7
Kasan 360 16”
C) By Awards dated 24.01.2007, the Land Acquisition Collector
assessed the market value of the lands at the rate of Rs.12.50 lakhs per
acre.
D) References initiated at the instance of land-hold ers were
discussed by the High Court in its decision under challenge as follows:
“Different reference courts at Gurugram dealt with the matter at
different points of time and the first award in question was dated
18.12.2010, pertaining to Village Dhana, wherein a su m of
Rs.46,07,890/- per acre was awarded as market value of the land
while deciding 2 reference petitions, which is subject matt er of
RFA No.2453 of 2011 titled HSIIDC v. Ram Niwas and others.
Similarly, on 04.09.2012, 26 reference petitions were decided for
the said village, awarding the same amount of compensation, which
is subject matter of RFA No.384 of 2013 titled Tej Singh v. State
of Haryana and others. On 04.12.2012, another award was passed
for the said village, wherein also, same amount of compensation
was given, which is subject matter of RFA No.2874 of 2013 titled
Marwan and others v. State of Haryana and others and which
was followed by another award dated 22.03.2013, which is subject
matter in RFA No.402 of 2016 titled Sunita Devi v. State o f
Haryana and others. On 09.05.2013, another award was passed
wherein also, same amount of compensation was granted, which
is subject matter of RFA No.6369 of 2013 titled Ranbir Singh v.
State of Haryana.
However, vide award dated 07.10.2013, Reference Court
granted a sum of Rs.50,70,359/- which is subject matter of RFA
No.7913 of 2013 titled M/s Asylum Estate Pvt. Ltd. v. State of
Haryana and others, whereas vide award dated 23.11.2013, which
is subject matter of RFA No.2091 of 2014 titled Siri Chand and
others v. State of Haryana and others, a sum of Rs.46,07,890/-
379
which had been granted earlier, was maintained. Another award
was passed on 17.03.2015, which is subject matter in RFA No.3743
of 2015 titled Udey Singh and others v. State of Haryana and
others for village Dhana wherein also Rs.46,07,890/ - was
awarded.
For Village Kasan, vide award dated 03.10.2012, which is
subject matter of RFA No.2086 of 2013 titled Lal Singh v. State
of Haryana and others, a sum of Rs.50,70,359/- was awarded
while deciding 24 reference petitions.
For land falling in Village Bas Huria, vide award dated
09.11.2011, which is subject matter of RFA No.3426 of 2014 titled
Sarup and another v. State of Haryana and others, a sum of
Rs.46,07,890/- was granted. Reference Court vide award dated
10.11.2012, in RFA No.1971 of 2013 titled Sohan Lal and others
v. State of Haryana and others, has also granted sa me
compensation. Vide another award dated 29.04.2013, for Village
Bas Huria, which is subject matter of RFA No.7119 of 2013 titled
HSIIDC and others v. Chunni Lal and others, same amount of
compensation was assessed. Thereafter, vide award passed on
01.09.2015, Reference Court, which is subject matter in RFA
No.16 of 2016 titled Jai Pal Singh and others v. State of Haryana
and others, fixed the compensation at the same amount.
Another Reference Court on 10.11.2012, while deciding 32
reference petitions, for Village Bas Lambi, which is subject matter
of RFA No.958 of 2013 titlted Balbir v. State of Haryana and
others, granted compensation of Rs.46,07,890/- whereby 829
kanals, 18 marlas of land was acquired.
For village Bas Khusla, while deciding 54 reference petitions
on 28.09.2013, a sum of Rs.68,32,893/- was granted by applying
the cumulative method, which is subject matter of RFA No.4004
of 2014 titled HSIIDC v. Amar Pal and others. Similarly, RF A
No.4424 of 2015 titled Ishwar @ State of Haryana and others,
deals with award dated 01.10.2014 wherein also, Rs.68,32,893/-
was granted.
While assessing the market value, vide award dated
18.12.20110, for village Dhana, for the first time, the Reference
Court kept in mind compensation awarded in HSIIDC v. Pran
M/S ACQUAINTED REALTORS LLP ETC. ETC. v. STATE OF
HARYANA & OTHERS [UDAY UMESH LALIT, J.]
Sukh (2010) 11 SCC 175 whereby a sum of Rs.20 lacs has been
awarded as compensation for the notification dated 15.11.1994,
for setting up the Industrial Model Township, Phase-I, Manesar.
It was further noticed that for notification dated 07.03.2002 of
Village Dhana, besides land of Village Kasan, Bas Kusla, Bas
Huria, which was also for the development of Phase-III , one
Reference Court had awarded a sum of Rs.28,15,849/- by giving
increase of 12% on Rs.15 lacs, as had been assessed by t his
Court. Since the Apex Court had enhanced the value @ Rs.20
lacs in Pran Sukh’s case (supra), the same was relied upon b y
granting 12% increase for the time-gap of 10 years, 10 months
and 12 days between the 2 notifications dated 15.11.1994 and the
one in question dated 27.09.2005, to assess the market value of
Rs.46,07,890/-. The apportionment claimed, as such, was also
decided in favour of the claimants and the claim of Gram
Panchayat was denied.
However, for the same Village Dhana, vide award dated
07.10.2013, another Reference Court relied upon the award dated
03.10.2012 for Village Kasan, which is subject matter of RFA
No.2086 of 2013, to grant higher compensation of Rs.50,70,359/-
, on the ground that it was pertaining to the same notification and
the public purpose was the same, i.e., for completi ng the
infrastructural facilities and other public utilities suc h as roads,
water supply, sewerage, electrification etc.
Thus, it is apparent that for the same acquisition,
Rs.46,07,890/- and Rs.50,70,359/- have been awarded for Village
Dhana and similarly, for Village Kasan also, Rs.50,70,359/- has
been awarded. However, Village Bas Khusla, Rs.68,32,893/- was
awarded, without the Reference Court having, in any manner,
recorded a finding, as such, that the lands situated in those villages
were superior or were better placed and without making any
reference to the site-plans in question.”
E) For facility, the brief details of the orders in Refe rences and
the amounts awarded as compensation are tabulated:-
381
Thus, except for cases at serial Nos.6,9,15 and 16, the market
value was consistently fixed at Rs.46.07 lakhs per acre.
F) The acquiring body, namely, HSIIDC3 as well as land-holders
approached the High Court by filing 114 Appeals and 19 cross Objections.
The High Court framed the following questions for consideration:
“(i) Whether cumulative increase was liable to be granted on the
basis of an Award for the notification dated 15.11.1994 for the
acquisition dated 27.09.2005 where there was a gap of 10 years
and 10 months between two notifications and whether the Awards
are sustainable on that account;
(i) Whether the sale deed dated 16.08.2004 in favou r of
M/s Conway Developers Ltd., which was subject matte r of
consideration in a bunch of appeals lead case in which was RFA
No.3381 of 2013 ‘HSIIDC v. Roshan Lal and others’ decided on
25.05.2018 are liable to be taken into consideration pertaining to
village Naurangpur which was for Phase-V of the IMT Manesar,
3 Haryana State Industrial and Infrastructure Develop ment Corporation
M/S ACQUAINTED REALTORS LLP ETC. ETC. v. STATE OF
HARYANA & OTHERS [UDAY UMESH LALIT, J.]
whereas the present acquisition is for the Transport Hub, which is
Phase-IV of the IMT Manesar.
(ii) What is the relevant market value of the land situated in Villages
Dhana, Kasan, Bas Huria, Bas Khulsa and Bas Lambi as on the
date of Section 4 notification dated 27.09.2005.”
Relying on the decision in General Manager, Oil and Natural
Gas Corporation Limited v. Rameshbhai Jivanbhai Patel and
another4 the High Court answered the first question against the lan d-
holders. While dealing with the evidence on record the High Court relied
upon its decision rendered on 25.05.2018 in HSIIDC v. Roshan Lal
and others. It was found in that case that sale deed dated 17.08.2003
[Ext.P-13] was the most appropriate sale instance, base d on which
valuation at Rs.48,46,000/- per acre was arrived at for lands from Villages
Naurangpur and Lakhnoula falling on the National Highway whereas
the lands falling inside and away from the Highway were subjected to a
cut of 10% and the market value for lands falling in the villages Shikohpur,
Nawada Fatehpur and Naharpur Kasan was arrived at Rs.43,61,400/-
per acre.
Finding that the lands in the instant case were comparable w ith
the lands from Villages Shikohpur, Nawada Fatehpur and Naharpur Kasan,
the High Court fixed market value in respect of the lands concer ning
present acquisition at Rs.43,61,400/-. The relevant discussion was as
under:-
“50. The argument raised by Mr. Shailender Jain, Sr. Advocate
that the sale deed dated 16.08.2004, in favour of M/s Conway
Developers Pvt. Ltd. which fall in Village Naurangpur, wherein
land was sold for Rs.57,60,000/- per acre should be the relevant
sale exemplar and should be taken into consideration to fix the
market value of the present 5 villages, though attractive a t the
first blush, but is not liable to be accepted. While deciding the
cases of adjoining village, i.e. Naurangpur, Shikohpur, Nawada
Fatehpur, Naharpur Kasan and Lakhnoula, wherein land had been
acquired for Phase-II of the Industrial Model towns hip, for
industrial, commercial, recreational and other public utilities, the
said sale deed had been taken into consideration for the notification
dated 17.09.2004 in RFA No.3381 of 2013 – HSIDC now HSIIDC
4 (2008) 14 SCC 745
383
v. Roshan Lal and others, decided on 25.05.2018. The market
value of the 2 villages, namely, Lakhnoula and Naurangpur has
been assessed at Rs.48,46,000/- since they were falling on the
Highway for the notification dated 17.09.2004. The land falling in
the interior and away from the Highway, in Villages Naharpur
Kasan, Nawada Fatehpur and Shikohpur were given
Rs.43,61,400/- per acre. Even in the said case, it was noticed that
the location of the said sale deed had not been brought on record
on the siteplans and from the evidence, it would be clear tha t it
was falling on the main road on the National Highway No.8 and
abutting the same and was in favour of a Developer. Accordingly,
the sale deed was taken into consideration for assessing the market
value of the said villges, especially Naurangpur and Lakhnoula,
as such, which were abutting the main highway also, as per the
site-plan in question. The market value, as such was found that it
was hovering around Rs.57 lacs, as such. However on the basis
of sake deed dated 17.08.2003 (Ext.P13), in the said set of cases,
whereby land measuring 8 kanals 8 marlas wa sold in favour of
M/s Reliance Industries Ltd. in Village Lakhnoula with the frontage
of 75.8 meters on the National Highway No.8 on its souther n
side, as per the description given in the site plan, the value was ,
thus, worked out at Rs.50,90,238/- per acre by granting 12%
enhancement Rs.6,10,828/-, keeping in view the development
which was taking place in the said area. The per acre val ue had
thus worked out at Rs.57,01,066/- and thereafter, 15% cut had
been applied to assess the market value at Rs.48,45,907/- (rounded
of to Rs.48,46,000/-) for the land falling on the highway for Village
Naurangpur and Lakhnoula. The lands falling inside and away
from the Highway were assessed by granting another 10% cut
and accordingly, for land falling in Village Shikohpur, Nawada
Fatehpur and Naharpur Kasan, the amount was further reduced
to Rs.43,61,400/-.
51. The pleadings and evidence have already been discussed in
detail in the above paras and it is amply clear that the land in
question is located at a considerable distance ranging from 7 to 10
kms from National Highway aNo.8 and therefore, cannot b e
granted the benefits of the land which is abutting the Highw ay
and closure to the main town of Gurgaon since Naurangpur is
M/S ACQUAINTED REALTORS LLP ETC. ETC. v. STATE OF
HARYANA & OTHERS [UDAY UMESH LALIT, J.]
situated ahead of Manesar towards Gurgaon. The argument that
the market value of the land adjoining villages could also be taken
into consideration while assessing the market value, would not
apply in the present case, as a perusal of the site plans would go
on to show that there are several revenue estates betw een the
lands which have been acquired of he 5 villages and vil lage
Naurangpur. The site plan (Ext.P222 and Ext.R1, in RFA No.384
of 2013 – Tej Singh’s case) would show that the land is on the
fag end of the development which is taking place on the Highway
and away from the National Highway. Village Naharpur Kasan,
Lakhnoula and Maneswar’s revenue estates would come in
between the lands of the acquired villags. The distance thoug h
pleaded in several cases that it was close to the National Highway
No.8, has been clarified time and again by the appe llant-
Corporation that it is ranging between 7-10 kms from the National
Highway. In such circumstances the sale deed in fav our of
M/s Conway Developers Pvt. Ltd. could not be safe exemplar
for fixing the market value and, therefore, the said judgment is
rejected.
52. The issue of assessing the market value would, thus, necessarily
have to be on the basis of a closer sale deeds of the vi llages in
question or of the adjoining villages. As noticed earlier, in R FA
No.3381 of 2013 titled HSIDC now HSIIDC v. Roshan Lal and
others, the sale deed in favour of M/s Reliance Industries w as
kept in mind for assessing the market value which fell in the
revenue estate of Village Lakhnoula. The land acquired in Village
Naharpur Kasan, market value was accordingly, fixed at
Rs.43,61,400/- after giving the necessary cut. The said award, as
such, can be treated as relevant piece of evidence to asses s the
market value of he acquired land also since Naharpur Ka san is
the adjoining village. The difference between the two notifications
in question was for a period of one year as the earlier notification
was dated 17.09.2004 whereas the present notification is dated
27.09.2005. It has already been noticed on an earlier occasion in
Maqdan Pal-III (supra) that major developments was taking place
in the area in the form of industry being encouraged and the big
names had already come in like Maruti Suzuki Ltd. The 10%
increase, thus, can be safely granted which would enhance the
market value to Rs.47,96,540/- per acre. However, the said benefit,
385
as such, is also not liable to be granted, keeping in view the location
of the land which is deeper inside and would not fetch the same
value though a period of one year might have gone by which the
subsequent Section 4 notification had been issued. Accordingly,
this Court is of the opinion that the market value for the lands of
the 5 villages in question, namely, Dhana, Kasan, Bas Huria, Bas
Lambi and Bas Khusla is liable to be assessed at the same amount
as what was granted to Naharpur Kasan, @ Rs.43,61,400/- per
acre along with situatory benefits.”
Going by the location, the High Court found that the lands involved
in the instant acquisition were identical to the lands from Villages
Shikohpur, Nawada Fatehabad and Naharpur Kasan. It relied on s ite
plan Ext.P22. It also considered the difference of about a year between
two notifications i.e. to say the notification dated 17.09.2004 under Section
4 of the Act in the earlier case and notification dated 27.09.2005 in the
present case. It was observed that logically 10% increa se could safely
be granted. However, considering the location of the lands and be ing
satisfied that there would not be any difference in the val ue despite
lapse of a year, it assessed the market value for the lands in question at
Rs.43,61,400/- per acre.
The appeals preferred by HSIIDC 3 were thus allowed while the
challenge raised by the landholders was rejected.
4. Being aggrieved, these appeals have been preferred by the
landholders. No appeal has been preferred by the State or the Acquiring
Body and thus, the scope of instant appeals is limited to consider whether
the landholders are entitled to any enhancement in compensation.
5. It was submitted on behalf of the land holders: -
(a) The lands in the instant appeals abutted the Kundli-Manesar-
Palwal Expressway, in respect of which notification under Section
4 of the Act was issued on 11.01.2005 i.e. even prior to the initiation
of acquisition in the instant case. The lands in the inst ant case,
therefore, had huge potential;
(b) Sale deed dated 28.04.2004 (Ext.P27 in the instant case) was
wrongly rejected by the High Court. This sale deed pertained to
an extent of 12 acres of land which was sold at the rate of Rs.1.13
crores per acre;
M/S ACQUAINTED REALTORS LLP ETC. ETC. v. STATE OF
HARYANA & OTHERS [UDAY UMESH LALIT, J.]
(c) Even post acquisition sale deeds, namely, Ext.P11 to P14 and
P28 to P30 were erroneously rejected by the High Court and the
compensation for the lands in the instant case could easily have
been arrived at by applying de-escalation on the post-acquisition
sale deeds; and
(d) Going by the valuation arrived at by this Court in Wazir and
another v. State of Haryana5, cumulative annual increase at 12%
per annum could appropriately have been granted.
6. It was submitted on behalf of the State inter alia that the High
Court was right in relying upon Sale Deed dated 17.08.2003 to arrive at
the valuation in respect of villages Shikohpur, Nawada Fat ehpur and
Naharpur Kasan and thereafter adopting same valuation for the lands
involved in the instant case.
7. It must be stated here at the outset that in respect of Phases II,
III and IV of theIndustrial Model Township, Manesar, Gurgaon, acquisition
proceedings were initiated with regard to lands falling in villages Naharpur
Kasan, Kasan, Bas Kusla, Bas Haria, Dhana and Manesar by i ssuing
Notifications dated 06.03.2002, 07.03.2002 and 26.02.2002 under Section
4 of the Act. The High Court vide its decision dated 09.03.2018 in Madan
Pal III vs. State of Haryana 6 assessed the market value in respect of
lands from villages Naharpur Kasan, Kasan, Bas Kusla, Bas Haria, and
Dhana (covered by Phases II and III) at Rs.41.40 lakhs per acre; while
compensation for lands from village Manesar (covered by P hase IV)
was assessed at Rs.62.10 lakhs per acre. The appeals arising therefrom
were decided by this Court vide its Judgment dated 11.01.2019 7 as
modified by Order dated 08.02.2019 8 in Civil Appeal Nos.264-270 of
2019 and other connected matters ( Wazir and Another vs. State of
Haryana5) i.e., after the decision of the High Court which is presently
under appeal. The relevant operative directions issued b y this Court
were:-
“32. In the circumstances, we direct:
32.1 In respect of lands under acquisition from Villages Naharpur
Kasan and Kasan the market value shall be Rs.39,54,666 per
acre. Additionally, all statutory benefits would be payable.
5 (2019) 13 SCC 101
6 2018 SCC Online P & H 2871
7 (2019) 13 SCC 101
8 (2019) 13 SCC 123
387
32.2 In respect of lands under acquisition from Villages Bas Kusla,
Bas Haria and Dhana the market value shall be Rs.29,77,333 per
acre. Additionally, all statutory benefits would be payable.
32.3 In respect of lands from Village Manesar the market val ue
shall be Rs.59,31,999 lakhs per acre. Additionally, all statut ory
benefits would be payable.”
Pertinently, the decision of the High Court in HSIIDC v. Roshan
Lal and others , which was the basis of the decision in the present
matters, had in turn relied upon the assessment made by the High Court
in its earlier decision dated 09.03.2018 in Madan Pal III v. State of
Haryana 6. Since the assessment in Madan Pal III vs. State of
Haryana6 was scaled down by this Court in Wazir and Another vs.
State of Haryana 5, theoretically, the market value arrived at by the
High Court in HSIIDC v. Roshan Lal and others would be on the
higher side.
8. We, however proceed to consider the material on record to see
whether the landholders are right in their contentions and are entitled to
enhanced compensation.
9. Sale Deed dated 28.04.2004 (Exhibit P-27 in the instant case)
was considered by the High Court as under:-
“The sale deed dated 28.04.2004 by M/s Gillette India
whereby land measuring 12.08125 acres was sold in Naharpur
Kasan which is developed portion of the village with a industrial
unit running on it, which would be clear from Schedule-II and
therefore, the value of the said sale deed in favour of Lotto Finance
& Investment for a sum of Rs.13.62 crores, would not be correct
exemplar, which could be taken into consideration to assess the
market value.”
Schedule II to the Sale Deed shows that apart from the land
described in Schedule I, constructed area, machinery including canteen,
kitchen, offices, 7 air handling units, air colling units, centrifugal chillers
of 400 tons each, LAN networking with extensive cabling, fire fighting
implements also formed part of the price.
This document was therefore rightly ruled out.
10. Post-acquisition sale deeds have, at times, been relied upon
by Courts. But in a case where pre-acquisition sale instances are
M/S ACQUAINTED REALTORS LLP ETC. ETC. v. STATE OF
HARYANA & OTHERS [UDAY UMESH LALIT, J.]
otherwise found to be adequate and appropriate, pos t-acquisition
instances, by themselves, cannot outweigh and discar d such pre-
acquisition sale instances. The pre-acquisition pointer in the form of Sale
Deed dated 17.08.2003 in favour of Reliance Industries Limited wit h
adequate frontage on National Highway was rightly fo und to be
appropriate. No fault can be found with such exercise.
11. While answering question No.1 against the landholders, the
High Court relied upon following observations in the decision in ONGC
Ltd.4
“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 acquisitio ns of
comparable lands in the neighbourhood. The said method i s
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.”
Wazir and another vs. State of Haryana 5 had considered the
value by annual increase as one of the alternatives. Secondly, the rate
adopted in that case was only 8%. The valuation in Wazir and another
vs. State of Haryana5, by itself, cannot therefore be taken as the basis
in preference to what could possibly be concluded on the basis of Sale
Deeds on record. The submission therefore does not merit acceptance.
12. However, two aspects of the matter are quite striking a nd
distinguish the instant acquisition from the one that was under consideration
in HSIIDC vs. Roshan Lal and others.
389
A) The notification for acquiring the lands for Kondli Manesar
Palwal Expressway was issued prior in point of time. It i s true
that according to the record, except for certain ex its, the
Expressway would otherwise be unapproachable as stated by
PW3 Ranbir Singh Yadav, Assistant Manager, HSIIDC. However,
a dimension distinguishing the instant case certainly got added in
that, even if there was to be no direct approach to the acquir ed
lands from the Expressway, in terms of potential, the lands in the
instant case definitely got closer to development.
B) Secondly, the acquisition in the case of HSIIDC vs. Roshan
Lal and others was a year before the present acquisition. If the
lands in both cases were otherwise identical in material terms, the
valuation found with respect to the former in the year 2004, must
have undergone some upward change when the valuation of the
latter set of lands is to be considered for the year 2005.
13. The High Court was right to a certain extent that there w as
nothing on record to indicate such upward movement. At this stage, we
may refer to the principles laid down by this Court in ONGC Ltd.4:-
“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 i s
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
M/S ACQUAINTED REALTORS LLP ETC. ETC. v. STATE OF
HARYANA & OTHERS [UDAY UMESH LALIT, J.]
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 i n 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 increase in prices, then the increase to be applied
would depend upon the same.”
14. Guided by the rule of thumb stated in said decision, and even
while considering that the lands in the instant case were agricultural in
nature and away from the Highway, in our considered view, two aspects
detailed hereinabove, definitely weigh in favour of the landholders. At
the same time, it cannot be ignored that the values arrived at in HSIIDC
vs. Roshan Lal and others (in the light of subsequent decision in Wazir
and another vs. State of Haryana 5) were themselves on the higher
side. Although, the decision in HSIIDC vs. Roshan Lal and others
was not challenged by the State, the fact remains that the values assessed
is that decision were theoretically on a higher scale and the landholders,
on that score, have received an advantage.
15. In the totality of circumstances, in our view, the landholders
must be held entitled to 8% flat increase over the market value assessed
in HSIIDC vs. Roshan Lal and others. in respect of lands from villages
which were found to be comparable. The landholders must therefor e
get enhancement to the tune of 8% over Rs.43,61,400 per acre that is to
say Rs.47,10,312 per acre (rounded of to Rs.47,10,500 p er acre).
Needless to say that they shall also be entitled to all the statutory benefits.
16. These appeals are allowed to the extent indicated abov e,
without any order as to costs.
Devika Gujral Appeals allowed.