REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1173 OF 2023

(Arising out of SLP (Civil) No.3585 of 2022)

Ravinder Kumar Goel .…Appellant(s)

Versus

The State of Haryana & Ors. …. Respondent(s)

With

C.A.NO. 1176 OF 2023 @ of SLP (C) No.4837 of 2022)

C.A.NO. 1178 OF 2023 @ of SLP (C) No.7772 of 2022)

C.A.NO. 1177 OF 2023 @ of SLP (C) No.7455 of 2022)

C.A.NOS. 1182­1210 OF 2023@ of SLP(C) Nos.3446­

3474/2023 @ D.No.11863 of
2022)

C.A.NOS. 1179­1181 OF 2023@ of SLP (C) Nos.10577­

79/2022)

Signature Not Verified

C.A.NOS. 1174­1175 OF 2023 @ of SLP (C) Nos.9898­
Digitally signed by
SONIA BHASIN
99/2022)
Date: 2023.02.16
16:15:06 IST
Reason:

1
C.A.NOS. 1217­1220 OF 2023 @ of SLP (C) Nos.622­
625/2023)

C.A.NOS.1211­1216 OF 2023@ of SLP (C) Nos.3434­

3439/2023 @ D.No.14744 of
2022)

C.A.NOS.1221­1222 OF 2023@ of SLP(C) Nos.2450­

2451/2023)

JUDGMENT

A.S. Bopanna,J.

1. The irony in all these cases is that the appellants

are land losers who have been divested from their land

either fully or in part to construct an Express Highway

over such land for the benefit of others to travel fast but

the process to compensate them with a just and fair

quantum of money instead of being on the fast track,

has been tardy. It is a couple of years short of two

decades from the date of the preliminary notification and

the appellants are still litigating to receive what is

rightfully due to them.

2
2. These appeals even otherwise have a chequered

history. The appellants are before this Court for the

second time. The lands which were owned by the

appellants formed a part of the lands that were notified

under Section 4 read with Section 17 (2) of the Land

Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘Act, 1894’) by the

Haryana Government Industries Department. The

preliminary notification was issued on 11.01.2005 and

the declaration under Section 6 of Act, 1894 was made

on 31.05.2005. The purpose for which the lands were

acquired is for the construction of Express Highway

Phase VII connecting National Highway No.1, 10, 8 and

2 in village Sultanpur, Sub­Tehsil Farukh Nagar, Tehsil,

and District Gurugram. The total extent of land notified

for the project was 798 Kanals and 2 Marlas of which,

the appellants’ lands are also included.

3. The award was passed by the District Revenue

Officer­cum­Land Acquisition Collector (for short ‘LAO’),

Gurgaon on 10.05.2006. The market value was fixed at

Rs.12,50,000/­ per acre for all kinds of lands as per the

rates of the lands supplied by the Collector, Gurugram

3
through the letter dated 03.11.2005. The land losers

including the appellants had sought reference under

Section 18 of Act, 1894. The Reference Court, through

its judgment dated 27.02.2012, after consideration had

enhanced the market value to Rs.43,17,841/­ per acre.

The High Court had an occasion to consider the

correctness of the same in appeals filed by both the

parties before it. The High Court, on consideration, had

through its judgment dated 05.02.2016 enhanced the

market value to Rs.62,11,700/­ per acre.

4. The land losers as also the State of Haryana were

before this Court assailing the common judgment dated

05.02.2016 passed by the High Court. This Court

through its judgment dated 25.01.2018 in the case titled

as Surender Singh Vs. State of Haryana & Ors.

(2018) 3 SCC 278, remanded all the cases to the

Reference Court and the parties were permitted to lead

further evidence whereupon the Reference Court was

required to take a fresh decision in the matter.

5. Accordingly, the parties had tendered evidence

and exhibited the sale instances as exemplars. The

4
Reference Court on re­appreciation of the evidence and

materials available on record has through its judgment

and award dated 10.01.2020, determined the market

value of the acquired lands at Rs.22,00,754/­ per acre.

The parties being aggrieved, were before the High Court.

The Haryana State Industrial and Infrastructure

Development Corporation Ltd. & Ors. (for short ‘HSIIDC’)

had assailed the quantum of market value determined

as excessive, while the land losers had sought further

enhancement of the market value. The High Court,

through its common judgment dated 07.10.2021 has

modified the judgment of the Reference Court and

reduced the market value to Rs.14,52,010/­ per acre.

The land losers being aggrieved by the same are before

this Court in these appeals seeking enhancement of the

market value in respect of the acquired lands.

6. In the above background, we have heard all the

learned counsel for the appellants as also the learned

counsel for the respondent­HSIIDC and perused the

appeal papers.

5
7. The gist of the contention on behalf of the land

losers is that the lands which are the subject matter of

these appeals are situated in Sultanpur which is within

the urban agglomeration. As such, though the lands

were depicted as agricultural lands, in fact, the said

lands have non­agricultural potential, more particularly

the lands are urbanized lands being located within the

urban area. In that view, it is contended that the

market value cannot be determined by either

considering the land as agricultural land or by applying

the yardstick which is applicable to large tracts of

agricultural land. It is contended that though the

composite notification to acquire the lands consists of

798 Kanals 2 Marlas of land, insofar as the appellants

are concerned, they are land owners of small extent of

lands which were to be used as urban land for purposes

other than agriculture, and therefore, the market value

as determined by the High Court on applying the floor

rates fixed by the Government, would not be justified. It

is their further contention that on the matter being

remanded to the Reference Court, evidence had been

6
adduced wherein sale exemplars were relied on. It is

contended that the Reference Court having taken into

consideration all aspects of the matter had in fact rightly

relied on the sale deed dated 07.12.2004 which was

marked as Ex.PX. Having done so, the only error

committed by the Reference Court is to deduct 35 per

cent of the value towards development charges

inasmuch as in the instant case, the question of

deducting development charges would not be justified as

the entire acquired land has been utilized for the

purpose of constructing roads. Hence it is contended

that the entire amount, being the sale consideration in

the said sale deed dated 07.12.2004 is to be reckoned

and the same be determined as the market value to

quantify the compensation.

8. The gist of the contention put forth by the learned

counsel for the beneficiary of the acquisition, namely

HSIIDC is that the Reference Court was not justified in

placing reliance on the document at Ex.PX, dated

07.12.2004. The said document related to the purchase

of a small extent as compared to the vast extent of 798

7
Kanals 2 Marlas of land which was acquired. Hence it

does not represent the true value of the acquired lands.

It is the further contention that on the other hand, the

HSIIDC had relied on, as many as nine sale exemplars

between the period 23.07.2004 and 25.11.2005 wherein

the larger extent of agricultural land had been sold and

the value per acre in all the said instances is lesser than

the floor rate which had been taken into consideration.

Though the LAO had determined the market value at

Rs.12,50,000/­ based on the same, the High Court

taking into consideration that there was time gap, has

adopted the same and added the escalation for the

period between the date of the circular indicating the

floor rates and the date of the notification. It is

contended that the High Court having thus assigned

appropriate reasons has determined the market value

and awarded just compensation. Therefore, the

judgment does not call for interference, is the

submission.

9. In the light of the rival contentions, keeping in

view that the only question herein is to determine the

8
appropriate market value for the acquired lands, the

well­settled yardsticks are to be kept in view and a

decision is to be taken as to whether the High Court was

justified in interfering with the manner of consideration

made by the Reference Court and as to whether the High

Court was correct in adopting the amount as indicated

in the circular providing for the floor rates for fixing the

market value in the teeth of the other documents which

were available on record. In this regard, it is noted that

the LAO at the first instance while passing the award

dated 10.05.2006 has in fact, kept in view the circular

dated 03.11.2005 issued by the Collector providing for

the floor rates at Rs.12,50,000/­ per acre and has,

accordingly, determined the compensation. As narrated

earlier, when the parties were before this Court in the

first round of litigation in the case titled Surender

Singh Vs. State of Haryana & Ors. (supra), this Court

having taken note of the governing factors as to the

determination of market value had remanded the matter

for fresh consideration though the circular relating to

the floor rates was also available to the benefit of this

9
Court to be noticed and applied if need be. In that view,

in the light of the said circular, without relying on the

same, this Court had directed that the evidence be

tendered by the parties before the Reference Court so as

to make such evidence the basis for fresh determination

to be made. Despite the same, the High Court in the

present round has merely relied on the circular

providing for the floor rates despite other evidence being

available on record. Such determination is therefore not

justified. From the records, it is pointed out that as

contended on behalf of the parties, the sale exemplars

were brought on record to aid the Court to determine the

market value, the consideration of which was required to

be made to arrive at an appropriate market value.

10. While adverting to this aspect of the matter what

is necessary to be noted is that the Reference Court

before appreciating the evidence, has kept in view the

parameters laid down by this Court while considering a

reference for the purpose of determining the market

value of the acquired lands to arrive at the just

compensation. Since the sale exemplars had been

10
placed by the rival parties before the Reference Court, in

order to take the same into consideration, the Reference

Court has in fact taken note of the decision of this Court

in State of Gujarat vs. Kakhot SinghJi VajesinghJi

Vaghela (1968) 3 SCR 692. This Court had enunciated

the principle that the price agreed between a willing

seller and a willing purchaser would be the price which

is generally prevailing in the market in respect of the

lands having similar advantages which can be the basis

to determine the market value of acquired lands if such

sale instances are brought on record.

11. Further, the Reference Court had also kept in

view the decision of this Court in Atma Singh (Dead)

through Lrs. and Ors. vs. State of Haryana and Anr.

(2008) 2 SCC 568 wherein it is held that the sale

instances of small pieces of land cannot be ignored while

determining the compensation for a large extent of land

acquired. The rule of deduction on development charges

would not be uniformly applicable was also taken into

consideration. It is in that light, the Reference Court

11
has placed reliance on the document at Ex.PX dated

07.12.2004 relied upon by the land losers. Under the

said document, an extent of 5 Marlas was sold in

Sultanpur i.e. the area which is the subject matter of

these appeals, for the sale consideration of

Rs.1,05,000/­ which would amount to Rs.33,60,000/­

per acre. On reckoning the said value of land, the

Reference Court deducted 35 per cent of the same

towards development charges and thereafter added the

escalation for 35 days being the difference of the period

between the date of the said sale deed and the date of

the preliminary notification. It is on the said basis that

the market value of Rs. 22,00,754/­ per acre was arrived

at by the Reference Court.

12. From the judgment of the Reference Court it is

noted that the sale exemplars which were relied upon by

the respondent­HSIIDC at Ex.R5/R12, Ex.R6, Ex.R9,

Ex.R13 to Ex.R16 were discarded since they depict the

market value of the land which is lower than the amount

awarded by the Collector. To that extent, the reason

assigned by the Reference Court is not justified. The

12
documents would have to be taken into consideration, to

decide as to whether the lands are comparable and, on

the determination, if the conclusion is that they are

comparable but the market value depicted is lesser than

what is awarded by the SLAO and if there is no other

document to indicate a higher market value, it would be

open for the Reference Court to confirm the award of the

LAO being more beneficial to the land losers.

13. Therefore, since we have already indicated that

the High Court was not justified in merely relying on the

circular fixing the floor rates when other evidence was

available on the record pursuant to the remand made, it

is necessary for us to take note as to whether the

Reference Court had committed an error in not relying

on the sale exemplars produced by the respondents

without analysing the comparability. The position of law

is well settled that when large extent of lands are

acquired and if the sale exemplar, also for the large

extent is available on record it would be safer to rely on

the same if they are comparable transactions. However,

as already noted above, this Court in Atma Singh

13
(supra) has also held that the sale instances of smaller

extents cannot be ignored. Further, this Court has

reiterated in many cases that the sale exemplars for

smaller extent can be relied upon subject to appropriate

deduction being provided towards development charges.

14. In the instant case, though the acquisition

Notification dated 11.01.2005 was issued in respect of

the large extent of lands measuring 798 Kanals and 2

Marlas, the extent of lands which were owned by

majority of land losers is a small extent. In fact, the

details indicated in the judgment dated 10.01.2020

passed by the Reference Court has referred to about 69

appellants who were before it. Therefore, the extent to

which each of the appellants is claiming compensation is

a smaller extent. In that background, if the documents

relied on by the respondents at Ex.R5 to R16 are noted,

the largest extent sold is under Ex.R16 being 32 Kanals

and 16 Marlas, while the least being under Ex.R8

measuring 3 Kanals and 8 Marlas. We have referred to

this aspect of the matter to indicate that while approving

the procedure for placing reliance on the sale deeds of

14
earlier sale transactions as exemplars, this Court

starting from the case of Kakhot SinghJi Vajesinghji

Vaghela (supra) and several other cases has

emphasized that the basis for the same is that the value

under such exemplars would represent the sale

consideration agreed upon between a willing seller and a

willing purchaser and therefore would represent the true

market value.

15. If the above­referred concept is kept in

perspective, one cannot loose sight of the fact that when

large extent of agricultural land is sold under a

document and if the land is to be used for agricultural

purpose, the price agreed thereto would be based on the

nature of the land and the purpose for which it is put to

use. In cases, where the large extent of agricultural land

belonging to a single owner is acquired, it would no

doubt be safe to rely on such sale exemplars of large

extents, more particularly, in circumstances where the

land which is classified as agricultural land is also used

for agricultural purposes. In such circumstances, to

15
arrive at the market value depending on the nature of

the cultivation, the capitalisation method by applying

the multiplier to the crop pattern and price derived can

be adopted and the market value be determined or

determine the market value based on such sale deeds

which are comparable exemplars.

16. However, the difficulty arises when a person holds

a smaller extent of land which is classified as

agricultural land but would have lost its character due

to non­cultivation and urbanization when such land is

more eminent and fit to be used for non­agricultural

purposes. It is in that circumstance, such land though

classified as agricultural will have to be treated as a land

having non­agricultural potential more particularly for

urban use. In that light, in appropriate cases depending

on the location and the extent of land held by each of

the land losers who is a part of the same acquisition, is

required to be kept in view, while applying the yardstick

to reckon the appropriate exemplar and arrive at the

ultimate conclusion. Therefore, there can be no strait

jacket formula that when the sale deeds for the sale of

16
large extent are available and large extent of lands are

acquired that alone should be reckoned as the exemplar.

What is material is its comparability, which would

depend on case to case basis and that is for the Court to

analyze based on the evidence available on record.

17. If the above­noted criteria is kept in perspective,

in the instant case as already noted and also

demonstrated to us at the time of hearing with reference

to the final development plan of Gurgaon­Manesar

Urban Complex 2031 AD, the lands in issue are within

the boundaries of the Municipal Corporation. Further,

the very award dated 10.05.2006 passed by the LAO

records that no crops are standing on the land.

Therefore, in that circumstance when smaller extent of

land is available, the same would be used for urban

development and not for agricultural purpose. Hence

relying on Ex. R5 to R16 which are sale deeds of a large

extent of agricultural land, would not be justified unless

there was further evidence brought on record to

demonstrate that the nature of the lands sold under the

said sale deeds and the lands notified are comparable to

17
each other. In that view, though the reason assigned by

the Reference Court is not appropriate on that aspect,

the ultimate conclusion to eschew the said documents

will stand justified.

18. If that be the position, from the documents which

were relied upon by the appellants­land losers, the most

appropriate document to be relied upon was Ex.PX

dated 07.12.2004 since it was earlier to the notification

dated 11.01.2005 under Section 4, read with 17 of Act,

1894 and in close proximity thereto, which has been

rightly done by the Reference Court. Since small extents

of land belonging to the land losers, having non­

agricultural potential in an urban area was notified for

acquisition, the said sale exemplar dated 07.12.2004

can be considered as comparable. The Reference Court

was, therefore, justified in reckoning the same. Since

the two dates are in close proximity, in our opinion,

further addition of the escalation value for 35 days was

not justified. The escalation of that nature is normally

to be taken if there are no documents within close

proximity to the date of notification and a document of

18
the larger time gap is the only available document to be

taken into consideration, in which case, the escalation

for a longer time gap is required to be given.

19. Having arrived at the above conclusion, the next

aspect which engages our attention is with regard to the

appropriate deduction towards development charges and

as to whether the Reference Court was justified in

deducting 35 per cent of the value from the market value

arrived at based on the document at Ex.PX. The learned

counsel for the appellants contend that the acquisition

in the instant case is for construction of the road and as

such, the deduction was not necessary to be made. The

decision in C.R. Nagaraja Shetty (2) vs. Special Land

Acquisition Officer and Estate Officer and Anr.

(2009) 11 SCC 75 is relied on to contend that in the said

case where the land was acquired for widening the

national highway, this Court has held that there is no

question of any further development, and as such the

deduction on account of development charges will not be

justified. The decision in Piyara Singh & Anr. vs.

19
State of Haryana & Ors. Etc. (2017) 2 SCALE 323,

also a decision where this Court held that the deduction

of 40 per cent as made in the said case when the land

acquired was roughly 1 kanal to 1 acre per person which

ultimately totals up to 305 acres which was acquired, is

not justified is relied upon.

20. Having bestowed our attention to that aspect of

the matter, we are of the opinion that in the instant

case, the said decisions relied upon by learned counsel

for the appellants would not be of any assistance to

them since they are rendered entirely based on the fact

situation arising therein. In fact, this Court in JAG

Mahender & Anr. Vs. State of Haryana & Ors.

through the order dated 21.09.2017 in Civil Appeal

No.15702/2017 arising out of SLP (C) No.16063 of 2016

and connected appeals had taken into consideration the

entire perspective relating to the deduction of

development charges with reference to the earlier

decisions of this Court in Haryana State Agricultural

Market Board & Anr. vs. Krishan Kumar & Ors.

20
(2011) 15 SCC 297 and in Sabhia Mohammed Yusuf

Abdul Hamid Mulla (Dead) by Lrs. & Ors. vs. Special

Land Acquisition Officer & Ors. (2012) 7 SCC 595

wherein on taking note of the nature of development that

would be required in the acquired lands and also the

general rule of deduction of 1/3rd of the market value

towards development cost except in cases where there is

no development required, this Court had ultimately

arrived at the conclusion that deduction of 25 per cent

would be justified.

21. In that background, in the instant facts, the land

acquired is for the construction of a new Expressway

which would require not just laying of the roads but also

providing several amenities through the highway and

also creation of service roads, flyovers, underpass to

townships across such highway. Land is also to be left

as a divider to bifurcate the two­way roads. Therefore, it

would not be justified in saying that no development

cost at all would be incurred. Hence, taking all aspects

into consideration and also taking into consideration

21
that the sale exemplar for a smaller extent is being relied

on for the reasons noted above, in the facts and

circumstance arising herein, it would be appropriate to

reckon the deduction towards development cost at 25

per cent of the value taken into consideration under the

document Ex. PX dated 07.12.2004. Therefore, from the

amount of Rs.33,60,000/­ which is the value therein, a

sum of Rs.8,40,000/­ being 25 per cent is to be

deducted. Hence the market value to be determined in

the present case would be Rs.25,20,000/­ per acre,

which shall be payable with all statutory benefits as

compensation for the lands acquired.

22. Before we part with this matter, one other aspect

which was brought to our notice is that in the first

round of the case, a higher rate of compensation was

determined and before the judgment was set aside and

remanded, in some of the cases the execution was levied

and the amount was paid to the land losers. In view of

the determination of the compensation at a lower rate in

the present round of proceedings, the excess amount is

being recovered by the respondents. The learned

22
counsel for the appellants contend that if this Court

determines the market value at a lesser rate than what

has been paid to some of the appellants, such of those

land losers who have received the amount, be protected

against recovery. Learned counsel for the respondents

would vehemently oppose such a request. Having

considered this aspect of the matter, we are clear in our

mind that it would not be possible for this Court to

create two sets of land losers who are otherwise similarly

placed, in respect of the same acquisition process after

having determined the market value at a particular rate

which is applicable to all of them.

23. Therefore, it is needless to mention that if any

excess amount has been received by any of the land

losers than the extent of the compensation determined

herein, the excess amount, in any event, is recoverable.

We cannot also lose sight of the fact that such a

situation has arisen due to the earlier orders of the

Court determining the compensation. Though it is not a

mistake of the Court, it has led to the present situation

due to the act of the Court. It would therefore be

23
appropriate to invoke the principle of ‘actus curiae

neminem gravabit’ so that both parties are not

prejudiced to the extent possible. Taking note that the

amount which has been received will be invested or

utilised, to enable repayment after making arrangement,

we direct that the balance to be refunded, shall be paid

back in three half­yearly instalments, free of interest.

However, if the amount is not refunded within the time

period as provided above, the same shall thereafter carry

interest at 9% p.a. and the respondent­HSIIDC would be

entitled to recover the same, including the right to make

recovery as arrears of land revenue.

24. In the result, we pass the following order;

(i) The judgment dated 07.10.2021 passed by

the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at

Chandigarh in RFA No.421/2021, RFA

No.848/2021 and connected appeals,

impugned herein, is set aside.

(ii) The judgment dated 10.01.2020 passed by

the Additional District Judge, Gurugram

24
 (Reference Court) in LAC Case No. 1426 and

connected references is restored and

modified.
(iii) In modification, it is ordered that the market

value of the acquired land is Rs.25,20,000/­

per acre. The same shall be payable with

statutory benefits and the costs incurred

throughout by the appellants.

(iv) The appeals are accordingly, allowed in part.

(v) Pending applications, if any, stand disposed

of.

……………………….J.
(A.S. BOPANNA)

……………………….J.
(HIMA KOHLI)

New Delhi;
February 15, 2023

25