RAVINDER KUMAR GOELversusTHE STATE OF HARYANA & ORS.

912                       [2023]
               SUPREME COURT     3 S.C.R. 912
                              REPORTS                      [2023] 3 S.C.R.


A                        RAVINDER KUMAR GOEL
                                        v.
                     THE STATE OF HARYANA & ORS.
                        (Civil Appeal No. 1173 of 2023)
B                            FEBRUARY 15, 2023
                [A. S. BOPANNA AND HIMA KOHLI, JJ.]
             Land Acquisition Act, 1894 : ss. 4, 6, 17(2) – Land Acquisition
      – Enhancement of compensation – On facts, land of the appellants
      acquired for the construction of Express Highway – Though land
C
      acquired on large scale, however, the appellants were land owners
      of small extent of lands – Award passed and the market value fixed
      at Rs. 12,50,000/- per acre which was enhanced by the Reference
      Court to Rs. 43,17,841 and then by the High Court to Rs. 62,11,700/
      - per acre – Thereafter, on remand of the matter to the Reference
D     Court, on re-appreciation of the evidence and materials available
      on record, the Reference Court determined the market value of the
      acquired lands at Rs.22,00,754/-, however, the High Court reduced
      the market value to Rs.14,52,010/- per acre – On appeal, held:
      High Court not justified in merely relying on the circular providing
      for the floor rates despite other evidence being available on record
E
      – Reasoning assigned by the Reference Court in discarding the sale
      exemplars relied upon by the State Industrial and Infrastructure
      Development Corporation since they depict the market value of the
      land which is lower than the amount awarded by the Collector, not
      justified – When large extent of lands are acquired and if the sale
F     exemplar, also for the large extent is available on record it would
      be safer to rely on the same if they are comparable transactions –
      Sale instances of smaller extents cannot be ignored – It can be
      relied upon subject to appropriate deduction being provided towards
      development charges – Since small extents of land belonging to the
      land losers, having non-agricultural potential in an urban area
G
      was notified for acquisition, the sale exemplar dated 07.12.2004
      can be considered as comparable – Reference Court justified in
      reckoning the same – Hence, 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
H     07.12.2004 – Thus, the market value would be Rs.25,20,000/- per
                                       912
   RAVINDER KUMAR GOEL v. THE STATE OF HARYANA                           913


acre, payable with all statutory benefits as compensation for the        A
lands acquired – Furthermore, 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.
      Partly allowing the appeals, the Court
       HELD : 1.1 The Officer-cum-Land Acquisition Collector at          B
the first instance while passing the award dated 10.05.2006 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. When the parties were
before this Court in the first round of litigation, this Court having    C
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 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          D
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 instant round has merely relied
on the circular providing for the floor rates despite other evidence
being available on record. Such determination is thus, not justified.    E
From the records, it is pointed out that 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. [Para 9][922-F-H; 923-A-B]
      1.2. The Reference Court before appreciating the evidence,         F
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.
The Reference Court kept in view 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            G
deduction on development charges would not be uniformly
applicable was also taken into consideration. It is in that light,
the Reference Court has placed reliance on the document at Ex.PX
dated 07.12.2004 relied upon by the land losers. Under the said
                                                                         H
914           SUPREME COURT REPORTS                     [2023] 3 S.C.R.


A     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
B
      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. [Paras 10, 11][923-
      C, F-H; 924-A]
C            1.3. From the judgment of the Reference Court it is noted
      that the sale exemplars which were relied upon by the respondent
      -HSIIDC 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,
D     the reason assigned by the Reference Court is not justified. The
      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
E     be open for the Reference Court to confirm the award of the
      LAO being more beneficial to the land losers. [Para 12][924-B-
      C]
             1.4. The High Court was not justified in merely relying on
      the circular fixing the floor rates when other evidence was
F     available on the record pursuant to the remand made, it is
      necessary for the Court 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.
      When large extent of lands are acquired and if the sale exemplar,
G     also for the large extent is available on record it would be safer
      to rely on the same if they are comparable transactions. The sale
      instances of smaller extents cannot be ignored. The sale
      exemplars for smaller extent can be relied upon subject to
      appropriate deduction being provided towards development
      charges. [Para 13][924-D-F]
H
   RAVINDER KUMAR GOEL v. THE STATE OF HARYANA                            915


       1.5 The extent to which each of the appellants is claiming         A
compensation is a smaller extent. In that background, if the
documents relied on by the respondents 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. While approving the procedure for placing reliance on
                                                                          B
the sale deeds of earlier sale transactions as exemplars, this Court
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. If the said concept is
kept in perspective, one cannot loose sight of the fact that when         C
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
                                                                          D
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 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         E
be adopted and the market value be determined or determine
the market value based on such sale deeds which are comparable
exemplars. [Paras 14, 15][924-G-H; 925-A-E]
       1.6. The difficulty arises when a person holds a smaller
extent of land which is classified as agricultural land but would         F
have lost its character due to non-cultivation and urbanization
when such land is more eminent and fit to be used for non-
agricultural purposes. It is in that circumstance, such land though
classified as agricultural will have to be treated as a land having
non-agricultural potential more particularly for urban use. In that
light, in appropriate cases depending on the location and the             G
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. There can be no strait jacket formula
that when the sale deeds for the sale of large extent are available       H
916           SUPREME COURT REPORTS                      [2023] 3 S.C.R.


A     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. [Para
      16][925-E-H]
B           1.7. The lands in issue are within the boundaries of the
      Municipal Corporation. 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
C     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 each
      other. In that view, though the reason assigned by the Reference
D     Court is not appropriate on that aspect, the ultimate conclusion
      to eschew the said documents would stand justified. [Para 17][926-
      B-C]
            1.8. If that be the position, from the documents which were
      relied upon by the appellants- land losers, the most appropriate
      document to be relied upon was Ex.PX dated 07.12.2004 since it
E     was earlier to the notification dated 11.01.2005 under s. 4, read
      with 17 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
F     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, 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
G     of 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. [Para 18][926-D-F]
            1.9. The land acquired is for the construction of a new
      Expressway which would require not just laying of the roads but
H     also providing several amenities through the highway and also
   RAVINDER KUMAR GOEL v. THE STATE OF HARYANA                        917


creation of service roads, flyovers, underpass to townships across    A
such highway. Land is also to be left as a divider to bifurcate the
two -way 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 that
the sale exemplar for a smaller extent is being relied on for the
                                                                      B
reasons noted, 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.   C
Hence the market value to be determined in the instant case
would be Rs.25,20,000/-per acre, which would be payable with all
statutory benefits as compensation for the lands acquired. [Para
21][927-G-H; 928-A-B]
       1.10. In the first round of the case, a higher rate of         D
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 appellants contended that if this Court          E
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 whereas
the respondents opposed such a request. Having considered this
aspect of the matter, it would not be possible for this Court to      F
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. 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,         G
the excess amount, in any event, is recoverable. It cannot be
lost 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          H
918           SUPREME COURT REPORTS                    [2023] 3 S.C.R.


A     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, the balance is directed to be refunded, back in
      three half-yearly instalments, free of interest. However, if the
B
      amount is not refunded within the time period as provided above,
      the same shall thereafter carry interest at 9% p.a. and the
      respondent-HSIIDC would be entitled to recover the same,
      including the right to make recovery as arrears of land revenue.
      [Paras 22, 23][928-C-H; 929-A]
C           1.11. The impugned judgment passed by the High Court is
      set aside. The judgment passed by the Additional District Judge
      in LAC Case No. 1426 and connected references is restored and
      modified. In modification, it is ordered that the market value of
      the acquired land is Rs.25,20,000/- per acre. The same shall be
D     payable with statutory benefits and the costs incurred throughout
      by the appellants. [Para 24][929-B-C]
           Surender Singh Vs. State of Haryana & Ors. (2018) 3
           SCC 278 : [2018] 1 SCR 581; State of Gujarat vs.
           Kakhot SinghJi VajesinghJi Vaghela [1968] 3 SCR 692;
E          Atma Singh (Dead) through Lrs. and Ors. vs. State of
           Haryana and Anr. (2008) 2 SCC 568 : [2007] (12) SCR
           1120; C.R. Nagaraja Shetty (2) vs. Special Land
           Acquisition Officer and Estate Officer and Anr. (2009)
           11 SCC 75 : [2009] 2 SCR 1092; Piyara Singh & Anr.
           vs.State of Haryana & Ors. Etc. (2017) 2 SCALE 323;
F          JAG Mahender & Anr. Vs. State of Haryana & Ors.
           Dated 21.09.2017 Civil Appeal No.15702/2017 arising
           out of SLP (C) No.16063 of 2016; Haryana State
           Agricultural Market Board & Anr. vs. Krishan Kumar
           & Ors. (2011) 15 SCC 297; Sabhia Mohammed Yusuf
G          Abdul Hamid Mulla (Dead) by Lrs. & Ors. vs. Special
           Land Acquisition Officer & Ors. (2012) 7 SCC 595 –
           referred to.
                           Case Law Reference
      [2018] 1 SCR 581             referred to            Para 4, 9
H
   RAVINDER KUMAR GOEL v. THE STATE OF HARYANA                                  919


[1968] 3 SCR 692                   referred to                Para 10, 14       A
[2007] (12) SCR 1120               referred to                Para 11, 13
[2009] 2 SCR 1092                  referred to                Para 19
(2011) 15 SCC 297                  referred to                Para 20
(2012) 7 SCC 595                   referred to                Para 20           B
        CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.1173 of
2023.
      From the Judgment and Order dated 07.10.2021 of the High Court
of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in RFA No.848 of 2021.
                                                                                C
        With
      Civil appeal nos.1176, 1178, 1177, 1182-1210, 1179-1181, 1174-
1175, 1217-1220, 1211-1216 and 1221-1222 of 2023.
       Siddharth Mittal, Ms. Shilpa G. Mittal, Kshitiz Chauhan, Sahil
Amarnath, Jitesh Malik, Budh Deo Prasad, Abhaya Nath Das, N D                   D
Kaushik, Satish Kumar, Varun Punia, Devashish Bharuka, Abhijeet Singh,
Ms. Sarvshree, Dr. Ajay Kumar, Kaushal Yadav, Nandlal Kumar Mishra,
Shafik Ahmed, Ms. Yashoda Katiyar, Aditya Kaushik, Pramod Kumar,
Vaibhav Niti, Ms. Madhavi Agrawal, Divyanshu Agrawal, Vibhuti Sushant
Gupta, Narender Kumar Verma, Anshuman Ashok, Ms. Adviteeya                      E
Sharma, Gagan Gupta, Himanshu Sharma, Ram Niwas Sharma, Mrs.
Aditi Sharma, Nitin Sharma, Lokesh Solanki, Arun Kumar, Vinay Kumar,
Prateek Bajaj, Rohit Jaiswal, Advs. for the Appellant.
      Alok Sangwan, Sr. A.A.G., Sumit Kumar Sharma, Apoorv Yadav,
Vipul Dahiya, Rajat Sangwan, Samar Vijay Singh, Dr. Monika Gusain,              F
Advs. for the Respondents.
        The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
        A. S. BOPANNA, J.
       1. The irony in all these cases is that the appellants are land losers
                                                                                G
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
                                                                                H
920             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2023] 3 S.C.R.


A     and the appellants are still litigating to receive what is rightfully due to
      them.
             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
B     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
C     and 2 in village Sultanpur, Sub-Tehsil 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
      Officer-cum-Land Acquisition Collector (for short ‘LAO’), Gurgaon on
D     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 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
E     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.

F            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
G     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 Reference Court on re-appreciation
      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
H     lands at Rs.22,00,754/- per acre. The parties being aggrieved, were before
   RAVINDER KUMAR GOEL v. THE STATE OF HARYANA                                  921
                [A. S. BOPANNA, J.]

the High Court. The Haryana State Industrial and Infrastructure                 A
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
                                                                                B
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 respondent-HSIIDC
and perused the appeal papers.                                                  C

       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
non-agricultural potential, more particularly the lands are urbanized lands     D
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,      E
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 adduced wherein              F
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         G
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.                                             H
922             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                              [2023] 3 S.C.R.


A             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 Kanals 2 Marlas of land
      which was acquired. Hence it does not represent the true value of the
B
      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
C     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
D
      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 appropriate market value for the
      acquired lands, the well-settled yardsticks are to be kept in view and a
E     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
F     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
G     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 Court to be
      noticed and applied if need be. In that view, in the light of the said circular,
H     without relying on the same, this Court had directed that the evidence be
   RAVINDER KUMAR GOEL v. THE STATE OF HARYANA                                  923
                [A. S. BOPANNA, J.]

tendered by the parties before the Reference Court so as to make such           A
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
                                                                                B
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       C
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 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.           D
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.                                   E

       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     F
on development charges would not be uniformly applicable was also
taken into consideration. It is in that light, the Reference Court 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       G
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
                                                                                H
924             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                            [2023] 3 S.C.R.


A     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 respondent-HSIIDC at
      Ex.R5/R12, Ex.R6, Ex.R9, Ex.R13 to Ex.R16 were discarded since they
B     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 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
C     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
D     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
E     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 (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
F     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
G     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
H     32 Kanals and 16 Marlas, while the least being under Ex.R8 measuring
   RAVINDER KUMAR GOEL v. THE STATE OF HARYANA                                   925
                [A. S. BOPANNA, J.]

3 Kanals and 8 Marlas. We have referred to this aspect of the matter to          A
indicate that while approving the procedure for placing reliance on the
sale deeds of 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
                                                                                 B
agreed upon between a willing seller and a willing purchaser and therefore
would represent the true market value.
       15. If the above-referred 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            C
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                D
circumstances, to 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.
                                                                                 E
        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 non-cultivation and urbanization when such land is
more eminent and fit to be used for non-agricultural purposes. It is in
that circumstance, such land though classified as agricultural will have
to be treated as a land having non-agricultural potential more particularly      F
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        G
for the sale of 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.

                                                                                 H
926             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                            [2023] 3 S.C.R.


A            17. If the above-noted 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 Gurgaon-Manesar 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,
B
      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
C     sold under the said sale deeds and the lands notified are comparable to
      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
D     upon by the appellants-land 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
E     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
F     within close proximity to the date of notification and a document of 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
G     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
H
   RAVINDER KUMAR GOEL v. THE STATE OF HARYANA                                 927
                [A. S. BOPANNA, J.]

decision in C.R. Nagaraja Shetty (2) vs. Special Land Acquisition              A
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
                                                                               B
& Anr. vs. 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,         C
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              D
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. (2011) 15 SCC 297 and in Sabhia
Mohammed Yusuf Abdul Hamid Mulla (Dead) by Lrs. & Ors. vs.                     E
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              F
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    G
such highway. Land is also to be left as a divider to bifurcate the two-
way 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 that the sale exemplar
for a smaller extent is being relied on for the reasons noted above, in the
                                                                               H
928             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                            [2023] 3 S.C.R.


A     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/
B
      - 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
C     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
      counsel for the appellants contend that if this Court determines the market
D     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
E     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
F     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
      appropriate to invoke the principle of ‘actus curiae neminem gravabit’
G     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 half-yearly 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.
H
    RAVINDER KUMAR GOEL v. THE STATE OF HARYANA                                    929
                 [A. S. BOPANNA, J.]

and the respondent-HSIIDC would be entitled to recover the same,                   A
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,             B
               is set aside.
       (ii)    The judgment dated 10.01.2020 passed by the Additional
               District Judge, Gurugram (Reference Court) in LAC Case
               No. 1426 and connected references is restored and modified.
                                                                                   C
       (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.                       D
       (v)     Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.

Nidhi Jain                                               Appeals partly allowed.
(Assisted by : Tamana, LCRA)

                                                                                   E




                                                                                   F




                                                                                   G




                                                                                   H