Holding

The appropriate market values are Rs 39,54,666 per acre for Naharpur Kasan and Kasan, Rs 29,77,333 per acre for Bas Kusla, Bas Haria and Dhana, and Rs 59,31,999 per acre for Manesar, with all statutory benefits payable and no severance charges payable to Kohli Holdings.

Summary

In 2002 the Haryana government acquired about 1,500 acres of land in six villages for the Manesar industrial township. The landowners challenged the compensation awarded under Section 23 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, arguing that the market values fixed by the High Court – Rs 41.40 lakhs per acre for most villages and Rs 62.10 lakhs per acre for Manesar, with an additional 30% severance charge for Kohli Holdings – were excessive and discriminatory. The Supreme Court examined the sale deeds presented, applied three valuation methods, and held that a 7.5% per‑annum escalation over the 1994 base rate of Rs 20 lakhs per acre was appropriate for the rural area. It fixed the market values at Rs 39,54,666 per acre for Naharpur Kasan and Kasan, Rs 29,77,333 per acre for Bas Kusla, Bas Haria and Dhana, and Rs 59,31,999 per acre for Manesar, with all statutory benefits payable. The Court also ruled that no severance charges under Section 23(1)(iii) were payable to Kohli Holdings. Consequently, the appeals of the State and HSIIDC were allowed, while the landowners’ and Kohli Holdings’ appeals were dismissed.

Issues considered

The correct market value of the acquired land in each village under Section 23 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
Whether differential treatment of villages and the application of cuts and enhancements by the High Court were justified.
The appropriate rate of annual increase to be applied over the 1994 base rate for rural land.
Whether severance charges under Section 23(1)(iii) are payable to Kohli Holdings.
The admissibility and relevance of the sale deeds used as exemplars for valuation.

Legislation cited

Land Acquisition Act, 1894s. 23, s. 4, s. 6

Subjects

Land acquisitionCompensationMarket valueSection 23Escalation rateSeverance chargesIndustrial townshipHaryana

Judgment

[2019] 2 S.C.R. 571 571

WAZIR & ANR. A
v.
STATE OF HARYANA
(Civil Appeal Nos. 264-270 of 2019)
JANUARY 11, 2019*
[UDAY UMESH LALIT AND
B
DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, JJ.]
Land Acquisition Act, 1894:
s. 23 – Compensation – Claim of – Fixation of market value
of the acquired land – On facts, in the year 2002, around 1500
acres of land acquired from different villages for public purpose of
development of Industrial Township, Manesar, Gurgaon by three C
notifications – Award of compensation to land owners for different
types of lands – Two sets of villages given differential treatment –
Challenge to, by land owners – Reference Court relying on the
decision in Pran Sukh case enhanced the compensation – Thereafter,
in the pending applications, Reference Court enhanced the D
compensation at the rate of 12% p.a. taking the base rate to be Rs.
20 lakhs per acre as on 1994, in terms with the Pran Sukh case –
Compensation awarded at the same rate for all kinds of land – In
appeal, the High Court relying on the exemplar, computed the figures
by giving cumulative enhancement at the rates of 12% and 15%
over the base rate of Rs.20 lakhs per acre and applying cut of 10% E
and 20% – Compensation assessed at Rs.41.40 lakhs per acre in
respect of lands acquired in villages – Compensation in village
Manesar assessed after giving 50% enhancement at Rs.62.10 lakhs
per acre – As regards land held by K additional component of 30%
also awarded on account of severance charges, over and above F
the rate of Rs.62.10 lakhs per acre – On appeal, held: On basis of
documents on record, sale deeds, three methods-Method no.1,
Method no.2 and Method no.3, the market value for the lands in
Naharpur Kasan and Kasan would be Rs. 39,54,666/- per acre,
the market value of lands from villages Bas Kusla, Bas Haria and
Dhana would be Rs. 29,77,333/- per acre and in respect of village G
Manesar, the market value would be Rs. 59,31,999/- per acre – In
addition all statutory benefits would be payable – However, K would
not be entitled to any severance charges.
*With modifications as set out in Para 9 of Order dated 08.02.2019 passed in M.A. No.
299 of 2019 in CA Nos. 264-270 of 2019. H
571
572 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 2 S.C.R.

A Disposing of the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1.1 In the instant case, the sale deeds Exts.P1, P2
and P3 relied upon by the landholders pertained to lands from
villages Bas Kusla and Dhana and were of the year 1997 that is
after the acquisition was initiated in Pran Sukh’s case. The
B maximum value per acre in these villages was Rs.8 lakhs per
acre and that too with respect to smaller plots. The sale deeds
Exts.P4, P6, P8 and PY however pertained to lands coming from
villages Naharpur Kasan and Kasan. Ext.PY dated 28.04.2004
was much after the acquisition was initiated in the instant case.
Secondly, as found by the High Court, there was construction
C and CLU was also obtained in relation to land in Ext. PY. For
these reasons the High Court had rightly ruled out said
transaction. At the same time Ext.P4 was also after the acquisition
in the instant case was initiated and pertained to a small plot of
land. Out of these four sale deeds, Ext.P8 is prior in point of
D time so far as the instant acquisition is considered and was
therefore rightly relied upon as the most appropriate exemplar
by the High Court. If the value in Ext.P8 is compared with the
maximum value under Exts.P1, P2 and P3 there is a marked
difference. This difference is again consistent with the valuation
that was accepted by the Sub-Divisional Officer cum Land
E Acquisition Collector. Since major part of the land under
acquisition that is more than 2/3rds is from villages Bas Kusla,
Bas Haria and Dhana, one way of assessing the correct value of
compensation is to treat these three villages on one side while
other three villages on the other side. However, not only the
F Reference Court but the High Court on three different occasions
had considered all these villages together and applied the same
rate of compensation. The base rate was initially taken by the
Reference Court to be Rs.15 lakhs in terms of the decision of
the High Court in Pran Sukh’s case and later to be Rs.20 lakhs
as per the decision of this Court. The High court on all three
G occasions had based its assessment taking base rate in Pran Sukh’s
case to be the starting point. The sale deeds Exts.P1, P2 and P3
indicate that even after the initiation of acquisition in Pran Sukh’s
case which was in 1994, the valuation of the lands was still at a
lower level. On the other hand, the valuation in respect of Ext.
P-8 has shown some increase. [Para 21, 22][594-F-G; 595-A-D, F]
H
WAZIR & ANR. v. STATE OF HARYANA 573

1.2 As regards lands in Naharpur Kasan and Kasan, Exh. A
PY dated 28.04.2004 having been ruled out of consideration, there
are 3 sale instances namely Exh. P4, P6 and P8. Exh. P6 dated
16.09.1994 pertained to land having an extent of 12 acres, a fairly
large area, where the value was Rs.20.00 lakhs per acre. This
value is equal to the one which was granted by this Court in the
B
case of Pran Sukh’s case for the acquisition of 1994. The next
sale deed namely Exh.P8 dated 29.09.1996 pertained to very small
piece of land which was less than ½ acre and the value was in the
region of 25.00 lakhs per acre. Without effecting any deduction
on account of smallness of the plot and considering the values as
they stand, it shows an increase of 25% over a period of two C
years, i.e. to say @ 12.5% per annum. This is one indication as to
the nature of increase in price after 1994. There is another sale
instance namely Exh. P4 dated 18.08.2003 which was after a year
and half from the dates of Notifications issued under Section 4 in
the instant matter. If the very same rate of increase, though this
D
Court in the decision in ONGC Ltd.’s case had ruled that while
deducting from a post-acquisition instance and working backwards
the rate of deduction ought to be higher, is adopted in the instant
matter, 18.75% will have to be deducted from the price which
was prevalent in August 2003 to arrive at the corresponding value
for the period when the present acquisition was initiated. The E
rate of Rs.48,66,666/- per acre, as available from Exh.P4, again
without effecting any deductions for the smallness of the plot,
must for the purposes of calculation suffer a deduction of Rs.9.12
lakhs @ 18.75%. A figure of Rs. 39,54,666/- per acre is arrived
at as the prevalent price in the year 2002. This price is arrived at
F
first by considering the rate of deduction which the value
representing the sale instance of August 2003 must suffer and
secondly after effecting appropriate deduction, arrive at the
appropriate value for the present purposes. This is Method no.1.
[Para 23][595-G; 596-A-D]
1.3 The acquisition in Pran Sukh’s case was of the year G
1994 and the award of rate therein corresponds with the rate
available on record through Exh.P6. Exh.P8 and P4, may indicate
the rise in values. However in both instances, the lands were
very small plots i.e. of an extent of less than half an acre. If the
H
574 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 2 S.C.R.

A prices are to be compared in real terms, the values representing
in two sale deeds Exh.P4 and P8 must be re-worked after effecting
appropriate deduction. Normally the deductions can range from
20% upwards. The lowest of the quotient namely 20% is taken.
On that basis, over a period of two years i.e. between Pran Sukh’s
case and Exh.P8 there would be no difference at all and the values
B
would show the same rate. If the rate available from Exh.P4 is
subjected to deduction of 20%, the corresponding value for a
larger extent of land would be Rs.38.93 lakhs per acre. The
difference between this value and the base value awarded in Pran
Sukh’s case would then show the rise over a period of 7 years.
C In other words, the price of Rs.20.00 lakhs rose by
Rs.18.93 lakhs in seven years that is to say it rose by 94.65%
giving an annual average of 13.52%. This rate represents pure
increase on non-cumulative basis. If the rate is adopted, the
base price as awarded in Pran Sukh’s case would have risen
to the level of Rs.36.22 lakhs per acre. This is Method no.2.
D
[Para 24][596-F-G; 597-A-C]
1.4 The instances representing Exh. P1, P2 & P3 as well
as P6, do not show any increase at all as against the base rate as
awarded in Pran Sukh’s case and the rise in Exh.P4 & P8 is also
not substantial. Going by the law laid down by this Court on ONGC
E Ltd’s case the cumulative increase of 8% over the base rate as
available in Pran Sukh’s case would give the correct picture as to
the rise in values in the area comprising of villages Naharpur
Kasan and Kasan. These calculations would show the
corresponding value for the year 2002 at Rs.37,01,860/- per acre.
F This is Method no.3. If the figures arrived at through these three
methods are compared, the values of Rs. 39,54,666/- per acre
under Method no.1, Rs.36.22 lakhs under Method no.2 and
Rs.37.01 lakhs under Method no.3 are quite comparable. Taking
the highest of these three figures, the appropriate value for the
lands in Naharpur Kasan and Kasan would be Rs. 39,54,666/-
G per acre in the year 2002. Additionally all statutory benefits would
be payable.[Paras 25, 26, 30][597-D, G; 598-A-B]
1.5 The values in other three villages namely Bas Kusla,
Bas Haria and Dhana have not shown any such increase. Apart
from sale deeds nothing has been placed on record, insofar as
H
WAZIR & ANR. v. STATE OF HARYANA 575

said villages are concerned. Even for these villages the base rate A
of Rs.20.00 lakhs may be adopted for the year 1994 and then
consider the appropriate increase. As the sale deeds in respect
of lands coming from these villages have not shown any increase
at all, by way of rough and ready method half the rise as shown in
the lands coming from villages Naharpur Kasan and Kasan may
B
be adopted. Half the difference between Rs.20.00 lakhs as the
base rate and Rs.39,54,666/- per acre adopted for the villages of
Naharpur Kasan, Kasan and Manesar would mean difference
of Rs. 9,77,333/- over the base figure of Rs.20.00 lakhs as awarded
in Pran Sukh’s case . Thus, the market value of lands from
villages Bas Kusla, Bas Haria and Dhana in 2002 must be at C
Rs. 29,77,333/- per acre. Additionally all statutory benefits would
be payable. [Para 27, 30][598-C-D; 599-F]
1.6 In respect of lands coming from village Manesar, the
High Court had granted 50% rise over and above the market
value in respect of villages Naharpur Kasan and Kasan. The D
increase to that extent was well justified as the lands in village
Manesar are abutting National Highway No.8 with excellent
commercial potential. The grant of 50% rise is not seriously
objected by the State and as such the same is confirmed.
Thus, 50% rise over the figures as applicable to villages
Naharpur Kasan and Kasan would lead to the market value in E
respect of village Manesar which would be Rs. 59,31,999/- per
acre. Additionally all statutory benefits would be payable.
[Paras 28, 30][598-E-F; 599-F]
1.7 Normally the additional component of compensation in
terms of Section 23(1)(thirdly) of the Act is granted when, a F
landholder suffers damage as a result of acquisition to the extent
that the holding that he is left with stands comparatively
diminished in terms of quality and value. For instance, if a railway
track is to be built through an agricultural land held by a person,
leaving two different halves with him, it would be impossible for
him to carry on agricultural operations at an optimum level. This G
would lead to reduction in the value of the halves that he is left
with. On the other hand, in a case where part of the holding is
acquired for which appropriate commercial value is awarded, the
rest of the value of the land will not stand diminished in terms of
H
576 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 2 S.C.R.

A commercial potential. On the other hand, the potential of the
remainder of the land would also increase drastically as the
development would be right in the neighbourhood, thus giving
substantial benefit to the landholder. The High Court was not
justified in granting further compensation of 30% to M/s. K
Private Limited on account of severance charges. Therefore, no
B
severance charges need be awarded to M/s. K Private Limited.
[Para 29][599-A-D]
Haryana State Industrial Development Corporation v.
Pran Sukh & Ors. (2010) 11 SCC 175 ; Haryana State
Industrial Development Corporation Limited v. UDAL
C and others (2013) 14 SCC 506 ; Satish Kumar Gupta
and others v. State of Haryana and others (2017) 4 SCC
760 : [2017] 1 SCR 767 ; General Manager, Oil and
Natural Gas Corporation Limited. v. Rameshbhai
Jivanbhai Patel and Another (2008) 14 SCC 745 :
D [2008] 11 SCR 927 ; Lal Chand v. Union of India and
another (2009) 15 SCC 769 : [2009] 13 SCR 622 ;
Surender Singh v. State of Haryana and others (2018)
3 SCC 278 : [2018] 1 SCR 581 – referred to.
Case Law Reference
E (2010) 11 SCC 175 referred to Para 7
(2013) 14 SCC 506 referred to Para 9
[2017] 1 SCR 767 referred to Para 10
[2008] 11 SCR 927 referred to Para 15
[2009] 13 SCR 622 referred to Para 16
F [2018] 1 SCR 581 referred to Para 20
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 264-
270 of 2019.
From the Judgment and Order dated 09.03.2018 of the High
Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in R.F.A. Nos. 4158, 4177,
G 4674, 4235, 4236, 4740 of 2010 and 6957 of 2011.
WITH
Civil Appeal Nos. 338, 333-335, 336-337, 272-332, 339, 271,
340-341, 342, 593-617 and 343-592 of 2019, S.L.P. (Civil) Nos. 4354-
4358 of 2019.
H
WAZIR & ANR. v. STATE OF HARYANA 577

Alok Sangwan, AAG, Abhinash Jain, Asst. AG, Dhruv Mehta, A
Ms. Kiran Suri, R. S. Suri, Sr. Advs., Jasbir Singh Malik, B. P. Singh
Dhakre, Shakti Dhakre, Ms. Usha Nandini. V, Dr. Monika Gusain, Sunny
Kadiyan, Siddharth Batra, Ravinder Kumar, Vishwajeet Arora,
Ms. Garima Sehgal, S. K. Sinha, Rattan Lal, Ms. Seema Kashyap S. J.
Amith, Dr. (Mrs.) Vipin Gupta, Ms. Aishwarya Kumar, Rohit K.
B
Aggarwal, Aditya Giri, Abhishek Singh, Anil Mittal, Vibhuti Sushant Gupta,
Satish K. Gupta, Ram Naresh Yadav, Advs. for the appearing parties.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
UDAY UMESH LALIT, J. 1. Leave granted.
2. The landholders and HSIIDC1 have filed these cross appeals C
challenging the final judgment and order dated 09.03.2018 passed by the
High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in RFA No.2373 of
2010 (O&M) titled Madan Pal (III) v. State of Haryana and another and
in all connected matters. Since all these matters arise out of the same
acquisition proceedings, they are dealt with together by this common
Judgment. D
3. About 1500 acres of land was notified under Section 4 of the
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act”) for the
public purpose of development of Industrial Model Township, Manesar,
Gurgaon Phases II, III and IV by three separate notifications. The
proposed acquisition was:- E
i) re: Phase II
About 177 Acres 5 Kanal 19 Marla situated in the Revenue Estate
of Villages Kasan, Bas Kusla, Naharpur Kasan and Manesar,
Tehsil and District Gurgaon was notified on 06.03.2002.
(ii) re: Phase III F
About 598 Acres 5 Kanal 12 Marla situated in the Revenue
Estate of Villages Bas Kusla, Kasan, Bas Haria and Dhana,
Tehsil and District Gurgaon was notified on 07.03.2002.
(iii) re: Phase IV
About 657 Acres 4 Kanal 3 Marla situated in the Revenue Estate G
of villages Bas Kusla, Bas Haria, Dhana and Kasan, Tehsil and
District Gurgaon was notified on 26.02.2002.

1
Haryana State Industrial and Infrastructure Development Corporation H
578 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 2 S.C.R.

A 4. Appropriate declarations under Section 6 of the Act were issued
by the State Government in respect of said lands under Phases II, III
and IV on 15.11.2002, 25.11.2001 and 18.11.2002 respectively.
Thereafter:
(i) In respect of lands proposed to be acquired for Phase II, Award
No.5 of 2003 was passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer (C)-cum-
B
Land Acquisition Collector, Gurgaon on 22.07.2003 and the
compensation awarded to the land owners for different types of
lands was as under:
Kinds of Land and rates per acre
Village Chahi Banjar Gair Mumkin
Kasan 5,25,000/- 5,00,000/- 7,50,000
C Bas 2,25,000/- 1,75,000/- 3,60,000/-
Kusla
Naharpur 5,25,000/- 4,00,000/- 7,20,000/-
Kasan
Manesar 7,00,000/- 7,00,000/- 10,00,000/-

D The extent of lands under various categories in the aforesaid
villages was set out in the award as under:
Name of Kinds of Land Total
village
Chahi Gair Mumkin Banjar Kanal Marla
Kasan 210-08 19-07 0 229 15
E Bas Kusla 752-18 47-17 0 800 15
Naharpur 52-12 0-02 0 52 14
Kasan
Manesar 272-00 16-05 09-07 297 12
Grand 1287- 83-11 09-07 1380 16
Total 18
F
(ii) In respect of lands in Phase No.III, Award No.1 of 2003 was
passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer (C)-cum-Land Acquisition
Collector, Gurgaon on 24.12.2003 and the compensation awarded
to the land owners for different types of lands was as under:
Kinds of land and rates per acre
G
Village Chahi Gair Mumkin

Kasan 5,25,000/- 7,50,000/-
Bas Kusla 2,25,000/- 3,60,000/-
Bas Haria 2,25,000/- 3,60,000/-
H Dhana 2,25,000/- 3,60,000/-
WAZIR & ANR. v. STATE OF HARYANA 579
[UDAY UMESH LALIT, J.]

The extent of lands under various categories in the aforesaid A
villages was set out in the award as under:
Name of Kinds of land Total
Village
Chahi Gair Mumkin Kanal Marla
K M K M
Kasan 1602 8 234 11 1836 19 B
Bas Kusla 955 6 32 11 987 17
Bas Haria 163 15 2 7 166 2
Dhana 1740 4 58 10 1798 14
Grand 4461 13 327 19 4789 12
Total
(iii) In respect of lands in Phase No.IV, Award No.6 of 2004 was C
passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer (C)-cum-Land Acquisition
Collector, Gurgaon on 20.05.2004 and the compensation awarded
to the land owners for different types of lands was as under:
Kinds of land and rates per acre

Village Chahi Gair Mumkin D
Bas Kusla 2,25,000/- 3,60,000/-
Bas Haria 2,25,000/- 3,60,000/-
Dhana 2,25,000/- 3,60,000/-
Kasan 5,25,000/- 7,50,000/-
The extent of lands under various categories in the aforesaid E
villages was set out in the award as under:
Name of Kinds of land Total
Village
Chahi Gair Mumkin Kanal Marla
K M K M
Bas Kusla 1619 13 75 16 1695 9 F
Bas Haria 874 9 30 10 904 19
Dhana 1402 4 89 13 1491 17
Kasan 1035 5 132 13 1167 18
Grand 4931 11 328 12 5260 3
Total
5. Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the land owners filed references
G
under Section 18 of the Act. Said references as regards lands acquired
for Phases II and III were dealt with as under:-
(i) In respect of lands acquired for Phase No.III, in LAC Case
No.513 of 2004 and other connected matters, the Reference Court
passed an order on 16.12.2009 enhancing the compensation to
Rs.28,15,849/- per acre with solatium and interest on the H
580 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 2 S.C.R.

A compensation amount at applicable rates. The Reference Court
relied upon the decision of the High Court in Pran Sukh etc. v.
State of Haryana which related to acquisition for the same purpose
of setting up an Industrial Model Township, Manesar pursuant to
notification under Section 4 of the Act issued on 15.11.1994, where
the High Court had assessed the compensation at the rate of
B
Rs.15 lakhs per acre. The Reference Court granted 12% increase
per annum on the rate at which compensation was awarded in
Pran Sukh by the High Court and arrived at the rate of
Rs.28,15,356/- per acre which was a common rate for all kinds of
lands.
C (ii) In respect of lands acquired for Phase II, in LAC Case No.164
of 2004 and other connected matters, the Reference Court2
passed an order on 27.01.2010 enhancing the compensation to
Rs.28,15,356/- per acre with solatium and interest on the
compensation at applicable rates. Reliance was placed on the
D earlier decision dated 16.12.2009 of the Reference Court. The
Compensation was awarded at the same rate for all kinds of lands.
6. While the reference applications in respect of Phase IV were
pending before the Reference Court, the appeal arising from the decision
of the High Court in Pran Sukh was decided by this Court on 17.08.2010.
This Court2 determined the market value of the land, where notification
E was issued under Section 4 on 15.11.1994, to be Rs.20 lakhs per acre.
Under said notification, 1490 acres of land from villages Manesar,
Naharpur Kasan, Khoh and Kasan was acquired. This Court found that
the High Court was right in relying upon the sale deed dated 16.09.1994
(Ext.P1) but held that the High Court was not right in imposing a cut of
F 20% and 25%. It held that all the lands would be assessed at the rate of
Rs.20 lakhs per acre.
7. The reference applications in respect of Phase IV were
thereafter taken up for consideration. Relying upon the decision of this
court in Pran Sukh3 the Reference Court in its order dated 30.11.2010
in LAC Case No.263 of 2008 and other connected matters enhanced
G
the compensation to Rs.37,40,230/- per acre. While so awarding, the
Reference Court granted enhancement at the rate of Rs.12% per annum

2
the Additional District Judge, Gurgaon
3
(2010) 11 SCC 175 (Haryana State Industrial Development Corporation v. Pran Sukh
H & Ors.)
WAZIR & ANR. v. STATE OF HARYANA 581
[UDAY UMESH LALIT, J.]

taking the base rate to be Rs.20 lakhs per acre as on 15.11.1994 in terms A
of the decision of this Court in Pran Sukh3. The Reference Court also
awarded solatium and interest on the compensation amount at applicable
rates. It awarded compensation at the same rate for all kinds of lands.
8. In respect of acquisitions for Phases II and III where
compensation was awarded at the rate of Rs.28,15,356/- per acre as
B
mentioned hereinabove, RFA No.2373 of 2010 titled Madan Pal v. State
of Haryana and all connected matters were preferred in the High Court.
Said appeals were disposed of by the High Court by its judgment and
order dated 11.02.2011. Relying on the decision of this Court in Pran
Sukh3 it was observed by the High Court in paras 22 and 29 as under:
“22. The issue under consideration in the present set of appeals is C
regarding determination of the value of land acquired for the
purpose of development as Phase-II and Phase-III of Industrial
Model Township, Manesar. The notification under Section 4 of
the Act for Phase-II was issued on 06.03.2002, whereas for Phase-
III, the same was issued on 07.03.2002. For Phase-II, the total D
acquired land was 1380 kanals and 16 marlas, whereas for Phase-
III, the same was 4789 kanals and 12 marlas. The entire land is a
compact block. It is adjoining to the land already acquired for
development as Phase-I in the year 1994. The village, of which
the lands was acquired, are common in the acquisition or are
contiguous as after crossing the boundaries of one village, the E
abutting land of the next revenue estate was acquired. It was
also contended at the time of hearing that almost at the same
time, land for development as Phase-IV was also acquired
adjoining to the land in question by notification under Section 4 of
the Act issued on 26.02.2002, the area being 567 acres 4 kanals F
and 3 marlas. Even subsequent thereto, for development as Phase-
V in the same area, 956 acres, 5 kanals and 18 marlas of land
was acquired vide notification under Section 4 of the Act issued
on 17.09.2004.
29. From the appreciation of evidence produced on record, in my
opinion, the price of the agricultural land, which was acquired in G
the year 1994, as determined by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in
Pran Sukh’s case (supra) can very well be taken as base for
assessment of value of the acquired land, which also on the date
of notification was being put to agricultural use. The additional
advantage available at the time of acquisition of the land in question H
582 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 2 S.C.R.

A was that the area in the vicinity had started developing during
interregnum of 7-8 years after the first acquisition in the year
1994. The value of the land, which was being put to agricultural
use and was in the vicinity of the land already acquired cannot be
determined at the same rate at which the plots were being sold by
way of allotment or auction in the already developed area but
B
those prices are certainly the guiding factors for determination of
rate at which the increase should be awarded, which in my opinion,
should be @ 12% per annum. Taking the same into account and
considering the time gap in the two acquisitions being 7 years and
3 months, the value of the land is determined at Rs.37,40,000/-
C per acre. The land owners shall also be entitled to the statutory
benefits available to them under the Act.”
However, as regards land held by M/s Kohli Holdings Private
Limited, the compensation was awarded at the rate of Rs.1.02 crores
per acre on the grounds that said land had frontage of two acres on
D National Highway No.8 and that on the back side there was connection
from a link road.
9. The aforesaid judgment of the High Court passed on 11.02.2011
was challenged in Civil Appeal Nos.4843-4940 of 2013 before this Court.
In its decision in Haryana State Industrial Development Corporation
Limited v. UDAL and others4, this Court noted the contention of HSIIDC
E in para 22 and then concluded in paras 29 and 30 as under: -
“22. Although in the special leave petitions filed by HSIIDC several
grounds have been taken for challenging the judgment of the
learned Single Judge, the only point urged by Shri Parag P. Tripathi,
learned Senior Counsel appearing on its behalf is that the escalation
F of 12% granted by the learned Single Judge in the amount of
compensation determined by this Court in Pran Sukh case is
excessive and is not in consonance with the law laid down by this
Court. He relied upon the judgment of this Court in ONGC Ltd. v.
Rameshbhai Jivanbhai Patel (2008) 14 SCC 745 and argued
that while assessing market value of a large chunk of land, the
G
Court cannot award more than 7.5% escalation in the market
value determined in respect of similar parcels of land. The learned
Senior Counsel emphasised that HSIIDC had to spend a substantial

4
H (2013) 14 SCC 506
WAZIR & ANR. v. STATE OF HARYANA 583
[UDAY UMESH LALIT, J.]

amount on carrying out development and argued that this factor A
should have been taken into consideration by the learned Single
Judge while fixing market value of the acquired land. Shri Tripathi
also criticised the impugned judgment insofar as it relates to the
award of compensation at the rate of Rs 1,02,55,960 per acre in
the case of M/s Kohli Holdings (P) Ltd. by arguing that in view of
B
several statutory restrictions on the development of land along
National Highway 8, the landowners could not have been awarded
higher compensation.
29. A careful scrutiny of the impugned judgment shows that while
determining the amount of compensation payable to the landowners
other than M/s Kohli Holdings (P) Ltd., the learned Single Judge C
did make a reference to Ext. P-38 (para 30) but did not rely upon
the same for the purpose of determination of the amount of
compensation. Instead of adopting a holistic approach and
examining the documents produced before the Reference Court,
the learned Single Judge simply referred to the judgment of this D
Court in Pran Sukh case, granted a flat increase of 12% for the
time gap of about 7 years and 3 months between the two
acquisitions i.e. 1994 and 2002 and determined market value at
the rate of Rs 37,40,000 per acre. In the case of M/s Kohli Holdings
(P) Ltd., the learned Single Judge squarely relied upon Ext. P-38
for the purpose of fixing market value of the acquired land, granted E
an increase at a flat rate of 15% per annum on the price of land
specified in Ext. P-38 with an addition of 30% on account of
special locational advantage and held that the particular landowner
is entitled to compensation at the rate of Rs 2119 per square yard
(Rs 1,02,55,960 per acre). However, no discernible reason has F
been given for granting the benefit of annual increase at different
rates to M/s Kohli Holdings (P) Ltd. on the one hand and the
remaining landowners on the other. Therefore, we find merit in
the argument of the learned counsel for the remaining landowners
that their clients have been subjected to discrimination in the matter
of grant of annual increase. G
30. The other error committed by the learned Single Judge is that
he granted annual increase at a flat rate of 12/15%.”
This Court therefore allowed the appeals and remanded the matters
back to the High Court for fresh disposal. Further, liberty was given to
Maruti Suzuki India Limited, namely, one of the beneficiaries of the H
584 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 2 S.C.R.

A acquisition to file an application for impleadment in the pending appeals
before the High Court.
10. Post remand, the High Court by its judgment and order dated
06.10.2015 passed in RFA No.2373 of 2010 titled Madan Pal (II) v.
State of Haryana and in all connected matters, remanded the cases
B back to the Reference Court for fresh disposal. It was found that the
acquiring authority had not defended the matters properly and the
beneficiary of the acquisition ought to be given chance to place the material
before the Court. It, therefore, permitted Maruti Suzuki India Limited to
lead evidence in the Reference Court. Liberty was also given to all the
parties to produce relevant evidence in support of their submissions.
C This judgment of the High Court was again challenged before this Court
in Civil Appeal Nos.1587-1636 of 2017 and in all connected matters. In
its decision in Satish Kumar Gupta and others v. State of Haryana
and others5 and in all connected matters, this Court held that the post-
acquisition allottee, namely, Maruti Suzuki India Limited could not be
D treated as a necessary or proper party while determining matters
concerning compensation. It, therefore, set aside the judgment and order
dated 06.10.2015 passed by the High Court and remanded the cases
back to the High Court for deciding the cases afresh.
11. Thereafter, the matters were taken up for fresh consideration
by the High Court. In support of the plea for enhancement in
E compensation, reliance was placed by the landholders on following
exemplars :-
Exhibits D ate Area/ S ale V alue per
Village Cons idera tion ac re in R s.
in R s.
Ex.P 1 12.06.1997 2 ka nals / 2,00,000/- 8 lakhs
F Bas K us la
Ex.P 2 23.06.1997 1 kanal 10 m arlas 4,50,000/- 8 lakhs
/ B as Kusla
Ex.P 3 18.09.1997 18 kan als/ D hana 14,28,750/- 6,35,000/-
Ex.P 4 18.08.2003 1 kana l 4 7,30,000/- 48,66,666/-
Marlas / K asan
Ex.P 6 16.09.1994 96 ka nals 13 2.42 crore s 20 lakhs
m arla s (12.081
G acres)/Naha rpur
Kas an
Ex.P 8 20.09.1996 1 kanal 1½ 3,53,000/- 25 lakhs
m arla / N aharpur
Kas an
Ex.P Y 28.04.2004 96 ka nals 13 13.62 crore s 1.13 c rores
m arla s/ N aharpur
H Kas an
5
(2017) 4 SCC 760
WAZIR & ANR. v. STATE OF HARYANA 585
[UDAY UMESH LALIT, J.]

Apart from the aforesaid exemplars, certain allotments of A
developed pieces of land namely Ext.P4 in favour of Orient Craft Ltd.
dated 02.02.2002, Ext.P11 dated 30.09.1999 in favour of Krishna Maruti
Ltd., Ext.P14 dated 07.08.2002 in favour of M/s Royal Tool, etc., were
also relied upon. Submission was also made that taking the rate of Rs.20
lakhs per acre as held by this Court in Pran Sukh3 to be the prevalent
B
rate in 1994, enhancement at 15% could also be considered to arrive at
the appropriate rate for the year 2002.
On the other hand, a prayer was made on behalf of HSIIDC and
the State to permit them to place on record certain sale deeds of 1994
and 2002 by way of additional evidence in support of the plea that
compensation awarded by the Reference Court was on the higher side. C
The prayer to lead additional evidence was however rejected by the
High Court.
12. The High Court observed that reliance on the allotment letters
of various industrial plots or the instances of auction sales would not be
a safe parameter to assess the market value. The High Court then D
considered cumulative increase in the price considering the rate of Rs.20
lakhs as awarded by this Court in Pran Sukh3 to be the base rate. Out
of the sale deeds on record, it considered Ext.P8 dated 20.09.1996 in
favour of Times Masters India Pvt. Ltd. to be the most appropriate
exemplar, and at the same time it also computed the figures by giving
cumulative enhancement at the rates of 12% and 15% over the base E
rate of Rs.20 lakhs per acre as awarded by this Court in Pran Sukh3
(supra). Thereafter, cut of 10% and 20% was also applied. Paragraphs
95, 96, 97, 98 of the judgment were:-
“95. Thus, if cumulative benefit by way of 12% cumulative
increase is to be given on the base price of Rs.20 lakhs from 1994 F
to 2001 enhancement would come to as under:-
Y ear P rin c ip a l E n h an ce d T o ta l a m o u n t
A m o u n t ( R s .) A m o u n t (R s . ) ( R s .)
1994 2 0 ,0 0 ,0 0 0 .0 0 -- 2 0 , 0 0 ,0 0 0 . 0 0
1995 2 0 ,0 0 ,0 0 0 .0 0 2 ,4 0 , 0 0 0 .0 0 2 2 , 4 0 ,0 0 0 . 0 0
1996 2 2 ,4 0 ,0 0 0 .0 0 2 ,6 8 , 8 0 0 .0 0 2 5 , 0 8 ,8 0 0 . 0 0
G
1997 2 5 ,0 8 ,8 0 0 .0 0 3 ,0 1 , 0 5 6 .0 0 2 8 , 0 9 ,8 5 6 . 0 0
1998 2 8 ,0 9 ,8 5 6 .0 0 3 ,3 7 , 1 8 2 .7 2 3 1 , 4 7 ,0 3 8 . 7 2
1999 3 1 ,4 7 ,0 3 8 .7 2 3 ,7 7 , 6 4 4 .6 5 3 5 , 2 4 ,6 8 3 . 3 7
2000 3 5 ,2 4 ,6 8 3 .3 7 4 ,2 2 , 9 6 2 .0 0 3 9 , 4 7 ,6 4 5 . 3 7
2001 3 9 ,4 7 ,6 4 5 .3 7 4 ,7 3 , 7 1 7 .4 4 4 4 , 2 1 ,3 6 2 . 8 1
H
586 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 2 S.C.R.

A Cut on the amount of Rs.44,21,362 @ 10% (Rs.4,42,136):
39,79,226/-
Cut on the amount of Rs.44,21,362 @ 20% (Rs.8,84,272/-):
35,37,090/-
96. Similarly, if the enhancement is to be granted @ 15% on Rs.20
B lakhs from 1994 to 2001, it works out as under:-
Year Principal Enhanced Total amount
Amount (Rs.) Amount (Rs.) (Rs.)
1994 20,00,000.00 -- 20,00,000.00
1995 20,00,000.00 3,00,000/- 23,00,000.00
1996 23,00,000.00 3,45,000/- 26,45,000.00
C 1997 26,45,000.00 3,96,750.00 30,41,750.00
1998 30,41,750.00 4,56,262.50 34,98,012.50
1999 34,41,750.00 5,24,701.87 40,22,714.37
2000 40,22,714.37 5,70,328.12 46,26,121.52
2001 46,26,121.52 6,93,918.23 53,20,039.76

D Cut on the amount of Rs.53,20,039 @ 10% (Rs.5,32,003/-):
47,88,036/-
Cut on the amount of Rs.53,20,039 @ 20% (Rs.10,64,007/-):
42,56,032/-
97. Similarly, if the benefit of 12% cumulative increase is to be
E given on the sum of Rs.25 lakhs after the sale deed from 1996
(Ex.P8) in favour of Times Master India Private Limited to 2001
enhancement would come to as under:-
Year Principal Enhanced Total amount
Amount (Rs.) Amount (Rs.) (Rs.)
F 1996 25,00,000.00 -- 25,00,000.00
1997 25,00,000.00 3,00,000.00 28,00,000.00
1998 28,00,000.00 3,36,000.00 31,36,000.00
1999 31,36,000.00 3,76,320.00 35,12,320.00
2000 35,12,320.00 4,21,478.40 39,33,798.40
2001 39,33,798.40 4,72,055.81 44,05,854.21
G
Cut on the amount of Rs.44,05,854 @10 (Rs.4,40,585/-) :
39,65,269/-
Cut on the amount of Rs.44,05,854 @ 20% (Rs.8,81,1702/-):
35,24,684/-

H
WAZIR & ANR. v. STATE OF HARYANA 587
[UDAY UMESH LALIT, J.]

98. For enhancement @ 15% on Rs.25 lakhs from 1996 to 2001, A
the amount works out as under:-
Year Principal Enhanced Total amount
Amount (Rs.) Amount (Rs.) (Rs.)
1996 25,00,000.00 -- 25,00,000.00
1997 25,00,000.00 3,75,000.00 28,75,000.00
1998 28,75,000.00 4,31,250.00 33,06,250.00 B
1999 33,06,250.00 4,95,937.50 38,02,187.50
2000 38,02,187.50 5,70,328.12 43,72,515.62
Cut on the amount of Rs.50,28,392 @ 10% (Rs.5,02,839/-):
45,25,553/-
Cut on the amount of Rs.50,28,392 @ 20% (Rs.10,05,678/-): C
40,22,714/-”.
13. On the basis of the aforesaid figures, taking average of both
the parameters after giving 15% enhancement but effecting 20% cut,
the figure of Rs.41,39,373/- which was rounded off to Rs.41.40 lakhs
was taken as the market value for the lands in question as under:-
D
“103. Thus, when we compare the enhancement firstly on the
principle of cumulative increase on the price fixed by the Apex
Court in Pran Sukh (supra) on Rs.20 Lakhs @15% from 1994 till
2001, it works out to Rs.53,20,039/-. Similarly, if the enhancement
of 15% is given on the basis of the sale deed Ex.P8 in favour of
Time Master India Private Limited from 1996 to 2001, the amount E
works out to Rs.50,28,392/-. In case the cut of 20% is applied on
the said amount, the amounts worked out to Rs.42,56,032/- in one
case and Rs.44,22,714/- in other case.
104. Resultantly, if the average of both the formulas is also worked
out the amount after giving 20% cut the average of said formulas F
would take the market value to Rs.41,39,373/- and, accordingly,
after rounding it off, this Court is of the opinion that Rs.41.40
lakhs would be the appropriate market value for the land in
question.”
14. The High Court, thus, by its judgment and order dated
G
09.03.2018 passed in RFA No.2373 of 2010 titled Madan Pal (III) v.
State of Haryana and in all connected matters assessed the compensation
at Rs.41.40 lakhs per acre along with statutory benefits in respect of
lands acquired in villages Naharpur Kasan, Kasan, Bas Haria, Bas Kusla

H
588 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 2 S.C.R.

A and Dhana (covered by Phases II and III). The compensation in village
Maneswar (covered by Phase-IV) was assessed after giving 50%
enhancement at Rs.62.10 lakhs per acre along with statutory benefits.
As regards M/s Kohli Holdings Pvt. Ltd., additional component of 30%
was also awarded on account of severance charges, over and above the
rate of Rs.62.10 lakhs per acre.
B
15. The aforesaid view of the High Court is now under challenge
in these cross appeals. Mr. Dhruv Mehta and Ms. Kiran Suri, learned
Senior Advocates for the landholders relied upon the allotments of
developed plots as indicators of high potential of the lands. It was
submitted that even if the rate awarded in Pran Sukh3 was to be taken
C as the base rate, there ought not to have been any cut and secondly, the
compensation ought to have been arrived at till 2002 and not upto 2001
as was done by the High Court. Mr. R. S. Suri, learned Senior Advocate
appearing for M/s. Kohli Holdings Pvt. Ltd. stressed upon the incongruity
in the price awarded presently as against one that was granted on the
D earlier occasion. He submitted that the lands of his client were on National
Highway No.8 and were bestowed with all the advantages and as such
the price awarded on the earlier occasion was the correct one. Mr.
Alok Sangwan, learned Advocate appearing for HSIIDC contended that
the sale deeds of 1994 and 2002 ought to have been allowed to be placed
on record. In his submission the compensation awarded by the High
E Court was on the higher side. In any case, considering the huge extent
of land the enhancement ought to have been in terms of law laid down
by this Court in General Manager, Oil and Natural Gas Corporation
Limited. v. Rameshbhai Jivanbhai Patel and Another6 and other
cases.
F 16. We must first consider the submissions based on the allotments
and instances of auction purchases of developed plots effected by the
Development Authority itself. These submissions were rightly rejected
by the High Court. The law on the point is well settled as stated in Lal
Chand vs. Union of India and another7. We therefore, reject these
submissions.
G
17. Before we consider other submissions, it must be mentioned
that the assessment made by the High Court in its judgment dated
11.02.2011 was not approved by this Court as is evident from its

6
(2008) 14 SCC 745
7
H (2009) 15 SCC 769
WAZIR & ANR. v. STATE OF HARYANA 589
[UDAY UMESH LALIT, J.]

judgment4. This Court recorded the submission made by the learned A
counsel appearing for HSIIDC that 12% cumulative escalation on the
rate in Pran Sukh3 itself was excessive and not in consonance with the
law laid down by this Court and also found that the landholders were
aggrieved by non-consideration of the documents produced before the
Reference Court as well as the inter se discrimination between M/s.
B
Kohli Holdings Pvt. Ltd. and the other landholders. We must therefore
consider the matter from two perspectives namely on the strength of the
documents on record and on the basis of the rate as found in Pran
Sukh3 to arrive at the appropriate market value.
18. We must also note, at the outset, the governing legal principles
regarding annual increase over a base rate. The law in that behalf has C
been succinctly stated by this Court in ONGC Limited (supra) in paras
10 to 17 under the heading “what should be the increase per annum” as
under:-
“10. The contention of the appellant is that even if Ext. 15 should
be the basis, in the absence of any specific evidence regarding D
increase in prices between 1987 and 1992, the annual increase
could not be assumed to be 10% per year.
11. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent
claimants submitted that the rate of escalation in market value at
the relevant time was in the range of 10% to 15% per annum. He E
relied on the decisions of this Court in Ranjit Singh v. Union
Territory of Chandigarh (1992) 4 SCC 659 and Land
Acquisition Officer and Revenue Divisional Officer v.
Ramanjulu (2005) 9 SCC 594 wherein this Court had accepted
an escalation of ten per cent per annum, and the decision in Krishi
Utpadan Mandi Samiti v. Bipin Kumar (2004) 2 SCC 283 where F
this Court had accepted an escalation of 15% per annum. He,
therefore, submitted that escalation at the rate of 10 per cent
adopted by the Reference Court and approved by the High Court
is a reasonable and correct standard to be applied.
12. We have examined the facts of the three decisions relied on G
by the respondents. They all related to acquisition of lands in urban
or semi-urban areas. Ranjit Singh (1992) 4 SCC 659 related to
acquisition for development of Sector 41 of Chandigarh.

H
590 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 2 S.C.R.

A Ramanjulu (2005) 9 SCC 594 related to acquisition of the third
phase of an existing and established industrial estate in an urban
area. Bipin Kumar (2004) 2 SCC 283 related to an acquisition of
lands adjoining Badaun-Delhi Highway in a semi-urban area where
building construction activity was going on all around the acquired
lands.
B
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
C and gradual, without any sudden spurts or jumps. On the other
hand, in urban or semi-urban areas, where the development is
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
D 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
E 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
increase in market value in urban/semi-urban areas is about 10%
to 15% per annum, the corresponding increases in rural areas
F 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 in 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
G would depend upon the same.
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

H
WAZIR & ANR. v. STATE OF HARYANA 591
[UDAY UMESH LALIT, J.]

sale transactions or acquisitions), where there is no evidence of A
any contemporaneous sale transactions or acquisitions of
comparable lands in the neighbourhood. The said method is
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
B
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, C
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.
16. Much more unsafe is the recent trend to determine the market D
value of acquired lands with reference to future sale transactions
or acquisitions. To illustrate, if the market value of a land acquired
in 1992 has to be determined and if there are no sale transactions/
acquisitions of 1991 or 1992 (prior to the date of preliminary
notification), the statistics relating to sales/acquisitions in future,
say of the years 1994-1995 or 1995-1996 are taken as the base E
price and the market value in 1992 is worked back by making
deductions at the rate of 10% to 15% per annum. How far is this
safe? One of the fundamental principles of valuation is that the
transactions subsequent to the acquisition should be ignored for
determining the market value of acquired lands, as the very F
acquisition and the consequential development would accelerate
the overall development of the surrounding areas resulting in a
sudden or steep spurt in the prices. Let us illustrate. Let us assume
there was no development activity in a particular area. The
appreciation in market price in such area would be slow and
minimal. But if some lands in that area are acquired for a residential/ G
commercial/industrial layout, there will be all round development
and improvement in the infrastructure/amenities/ facilities in the
next one or two years, as a result of which the surrounding lands

H
592 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 2 S.C.R.

A will become more valuable. Even if there is no actual improvement
in infrastructure, the potential and possibility of improvement on
account of the proposed residential/commercial/industrial layout
will result in a higher rate of escalation in prices. As a result, if the
annual increase in market value was around 10% per annum before
the acquisition, the annual increase of market value of lands in the
B
areas neighbouring the acquired land, will become much more,
say 20% to 30%, or even more on account of the development/
proposed development. Therefore, if the percentage to be added
with reference to previous acquisitions/sale transactions is 10%
per annum, the percentage to be deducted to arrive at a market
C value with reference to future acquisitions/sale transactions should
not be 10% per annum, but much more. The percentage of standard
increase becomes unreliable. Courts should, therefore, avoid
determination of market value with reference to subsequent/future
transactions. Even if it becomes inevitable, there should be greater
caution in applying the prices fetched for transactions in future.
D
Be that as it may.
17. In this case, the acquisition was in a rural area. There was no
evidence of any out of the ordinary developments or increases in
prices in the area. We are of the view that providing an escalation
of 7.5% per annum over the 1987 price under Ext. 15, would be
E sufficient and appropriate to arrive at the market value of acquired
lands.”
19. The instant matter is required to be considered in the light of
the aforesaid principles. The land under present acquisition is an extent
of 1500 acres and from 6 villages i.e. Bas Kusla, Bas Haria, Dhana,
F Manesar, Naharpur Kasan and Kasan. If the computation which was
accepted by the Sub-Divisional Officer cum Land Acquisition Collector
is considered, the values of lands in villages Bas Kusla, Bas Haria and
Dhana were definitely on the lower side as compared to the corresponding
values from villages like Manesar, Naharpur Kasan and Kasan. In the
awards, the maximum value of Rs.10 lakhs per acre was in respect of
G lands from Manesar while those from Naharpur Kasan and Kasan were
Rs.7,20,000/- and Rs.7,50,000/-per acre respectively. As compared to
these villages the values in respect of lands in Bas Kusla, Bas Haria and
Dhana were almost less than 50%. If the extent of land which was

H
WAZIR & ANR. v. STATE OF HARYANA 593
[UDAY UMESH LALIT, J.]

subject matter of acquisition is again considered, more than 2/3rds of lands A
are from villages Bas Kusla, Bas Haria and Dhana. The earlier acquisition
of 1994 which was dealt with in Pran Sukh3 was with regard to four
villages, including Manesar, Naharpur Kasan and Kasan. In these villages,
the valuation was found to be more than double as compared to villages
Bas Kusla, Bas Haria and Dhana. The question then arises whether
B
these two sets of villages ought to be given differential treatment or
should they be clubbed and put at the same level.
20. Recently, in the case of Surender Singh v. State of Haryana
and others8 the acquisition was initiated on 11.01.2005 for acquiring an
extent of 520 acres of land from 15 villages in the State of Haryana.
Two villages, namely, Kasan and Dhana out of said 15 villages are also C
part of the present acquisition. Relying on the decision of Pran Sukh3
where compensation was awarded at the rate of Rs.20 lakhs per acre
and after granting 8% cumulative increase over rates of 1994, the High
Court had arrived at the rate of compensation for the entire extent of
520 acres. While remanding the matter back to the High Court for fresh D
consideration it was observed by this Court in paras 26 to 29 as under:
“26. The High Court, however, noticed from the facts involved in
Pran Sukh3 that the land situated in one Village Kasan along with
its some adjoining villages was acquired on 15-11-1994 by the
State and this Court determined the compensation payable to the
landowners of Kasan Village @ Rs 20,00,000 per acre. E
27. The High Court felt that Rs 20,000,00 per acre should be
taken as the base price for determining the rate of acquired land
in question. The High Court perhaps did this after having noticed
that some part of the acquired land in these appeals is situated in
Kasan Village and, therefore, it is ideal to take the rate of Kasan F
Village land as basis for determining the rate of acquired land
also. The High Court accordingly gave annual increase of 8% to
Rs 20,00,000 and worked out the rate at Rs 62,11,700 per acre for
the entire acquired land in question by applying one uniform rate.
28. In our considered opinion, the approach of the High Court in G
the facts of these cases does not appear to be right inasmuch as
the High Court failed to take into consideration several material

8
(2018) 3 SCC 278 H
594 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 2 S.C.R.

A issues which arose in these cases and had a bearing on
determination of the fair market rate of the land in question under
Section 23 of the Act:
28.1. First, the acquired land, in these cases, was a huge chunk
of land measuring around 520 acres, 2 kanals and 13.5 marlas.
B 28.2. Second, the entire acquired land was not situated in Village
Kasan but it was spread over in 15 villages as detailed above.
28.3. Third, there is no evidence to show much less any finding
of the High Court as to what was the actual distance among the
15 villages against one another, the location, situation/area of each
C village, whether any development had taken place and, if so, its
type, nature and when it took place in any of these villages, the
potentiality and the quality of the acquired land situated in each
village, its nature and the basis, the market rate of the land situated
in each village prior to the date of acquisition or in its near proximity,
whether small piece of land or preferably big chunk of land, the
D actual distance of each village qua any other nearby big developed
city, town or a place, whether any activity is being carried on in
the nearby areas, their details.
28.4. Fourth, whether the acquired land in Pran Sukh3 in Village
Kasan and the acquired land in question are similar in nature or
E different and, if so, how and on what basis, their total distance,
etc.
29. These were, in our view, the issues which had material bearing
while determining the rate of the acquired land in question.”
21. In the instant case, the sale deeds Exts.P1, P2 and P3 relied
F upon by the landholders pertained to lands from villages Bas Kusla and
Dhana and were of the year 1997 that is after the acquisition was initiated
in Pran Sukh3. The maximum value per acre in these villages was Rs.8
lakhs per acre and that too with respect to smaller plots. The sale deeds
Exts.P4, P6, P8 and PY however pertained to lands coming from villages
Naharpur Kasan and Kasan. Ext.PY dated 28.04.2004 was much after
G the acquisition was initiated in the present case. Secondly, as found by
the High Court in para 74 of its judgment, there was construction and
CLU was also obtained in relation to land in Ext. PY. For these reasons
the High Court had rightly ruled out said transaction. At the same time

H
WAZIR & ANR. v. STATE OF HARYANA 595
[UDAY UMESH LALIT, J.]

Ext.P4 was also after the acquisition in the present case was initiated A
and pertained to a small plot of land. Out of these four sale deeds, Ext.P8
is prior in point of time so far as the present acquisition is considered and
was therefore rightly relied upon as the most appropriate exemplar by
the High Court. If the value in Ext.P8 is compared with the maximum
value under Exts.P1, P2 and P3 there is a marked difference. This
B
difference is again consistent with the valuation that was accepted by
the Sub-Divisional Officer cum Land Acquisition Collector. Since major
part of the land under acquisition that is more than T!rds is from villages
Bas Kusla, Bas Haria and Dhana, one way of assessing the correct
value of compensation is to treat these three villages on one side while
other three villages on the other side. C
22. However, not only the Reference Court but the High Court on
three different occasions had considered all these villages together and
applied the same rate of compensation. The base rate was initially taken
by the Reference Court to be Rs.15 lakhs in terms of the decision of the
High Court in Pran Sukh and later to be Rs.20 lakhs as per the decision D
of this Court. The High court on all three occasions had based its
assessment taking base rate in Pran Sukh3 to be the starting point. We
must also note that in Pran Sukh3, this Court had also applied uniform
rate for the entirety of the extent of 1490 acres of land coming from four
different villages. It would therefore be inappropriate at this stage to
make a distinction between these two sets of villages for the purposes E
of base rate. But this point will certainly be of relevance when we
consider the ratio of escalation. The sale deeds Exts.P1, P2 and P3
indicate that even after the initiation of acquisition in Pran Sukh3 case
which was in 1994, the valuation of the lands was still at a lower level.
On the other hand, the valuation in respect of Ext. P-8 has shown some F
increase.
23. As regards lands in Naharpur Kasan and Kasan, Exh. PY
dated 28.04.2004 having been ruled out of consideration, we are now
left with 3 sale instances namely Exh. P4, P6 and P8. We may first
consider pre-acquisition instances namely Exh. P6 & P8. Exh. P6 dated
16.09.1994 pertained to land having an extent of 12 acres, a fairly large G
area, where the value was Rs.20.00 lakhs per acre. This value is equal
to the one which was granted by this Court in the case of Pran Sukh3
for the acquisition of 1994. The next sale deed namely Exh.P8 dated
29.09.1996 pertained to very small piece of land which was less than
H
596 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 2 S.C.R.

A ½ acre and the value was in the region of 25.00 lakhs per acre. Without
effecting any deduction on account of smallness of the plot and considering
the values as they stand, it shows an increase of 25% over a period of
two years, i.e. to say @ 12.5% per annum. This is one indication as to
the nature of increase in price after 1994.
B We have another sale instance namely Exh. P4 dated 18.08.2003
which was after a year and half from the dates of Notifications issued
under Section 4 in the present matter. If the very same rate of increase,
though this Court in the decision in ONGC Ltd. (supra) had ruled that
while deducting from a post-acquisition instance and working backwards
the rate of deduction ought to be higher, is adopted in the present matter,
C 18.75% will have to be deducted from the price which was prevalent in
August 2003 to arrive at the corresponding value for the period when
the present acquisition was initiated. The rate of Rs.48,66,666/- per acre9,
as available from Exh.P4, again without effecting any deductions for the
smallness of the plot, must for the purposes of calculation suffer a
D deduction of Rs.9.12 lakhs @ 18.75%. We thus arrive at a figure of
Rs.39,54,666/- per acre10 as the prevalent price in the year 2002. This
price is arrived at first by considering the rate of deduction which the
value representing the sale instance of August 2003 must suffer and
secondly after effecting appropriate deduction, arrive at the appropriate
value for the present purposes. We may call this Method no.1.
E 24. We now consider the matter from a different perspective and
take the rate awarded in Pran Sukh3 as the basis and then try to arrive
at the appropriate value for the present acquisition. For this purpose, we
may have to determine the rate of increase as shown by the sale deeds
on record. The acquisition in Pran Sukh3 was of the year 1994 and the
F award of rate therein corresponds with the rate available on record
through Exh.P6. We have two instances of Exh.P8 and P4, which may
indicate the rise in values. However in both instances, the lands were
very small plots i.e. of an extent of less than half an acre. If the prices
are to be compared in real terms, the values representing in two sale
deeds Exh.P4 and P8 must be re-worked after effecting appropriate
G deduction. Normally the deductions can range from 20% upwards. We
may however take the lowest of the quotient namely 20%. On that

9
The figure was corrected in terms of Order dated 08.02.2019 in MA No. 299/2019.
10
H The figure was corrected in terms of Order dated 08.02.2019 in MA No. 299/2019.
WAZIR & ANR. v. STATE OF HARYANA 597
[UDAY UMESH LALIT, J.]

basis, over a period of two years i.e. between Pran Sukh3 and Exh.P8 A
there would be no difference at all and the values would show the same
rate. If the rate available from Exh.P4 is subjected to deduction of 20%,
the corresponding value for a larger extent of land would be Rs.38.93
lakhs per acre. The difference between this value and the base value
awarded in Pran Sukh3 (supra) would then show the rise over a period
B
of 7 years. In other words, the price of Rs.20.00 lakhs rose by Rs.18.93
lakhs in seven years that is to say it rose by 94.65% giving us an annual
average of 13.52%. This rate represents pure increase on non-cumulative
basis. If we adopt the rate, the base price as awarded in Pran Sukh3
would have risen to the level of Rs.36.22 lakhs per acre. We may call
this Method no.2. C
25. The instances representing Exh. P1, P2 & P3 as well as P6,
as a matter of fact do not show any increase at all as against the base
rate as awarded in Pran Sukh3 and the rise in Exh.P4 & P8 is also not
substantial. Going by the law laid down by this Court on ONGC Ltd.
(supra) in our considered view, the cumulative increase of 8% over the D
base rate as available in Pran Sukh3 would give us the correct picture
as to the rise in values in the area comprising of villages Naharpur Kasan
and Kasan. The tabulated chart in that regard would be as under :
Year Principal Enhanced Total amount (Rs.)
Amount (Rs.) Amount (Rs.)
1994 20,00,000/- --- 20,00,000/- E
1995 20,00,000/- 1,60,000/- 21,60,000/-
1996 21,60,000/- 1,72,800/- 23,32,800/-
1997 23,32,800/- 1,86,624/- 25,19,424/-
1998 25,19,424/- 2,01,554/- 27,20,978/- F
1999 27,20,978/- 2,17,678/- 29,38,656/-
2000 29,38,656/- 2,35,092/- 31,73,748/-
2001 31,73,748/- 2,53,900/- 34,27,648/-
2002 34,27,648/- 2,74,212/- 37,01,860/-
G
These calculations would show the corresponding value for the
year 2002 at Rs.37,01,860/- per acre. We may call this as Method no.3.

H
598 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 2 S.C.R.

A 26. If the figures arrived at through these three methods are
compared, the values of Rs.39,54,666/- per acre11 under Method no.1,
Rs.36.22 lakhs under Method no.2 and Rs.37.01 lakhs under Method
no.3 are quite comparable. If the highest of these three figures is taken,
the appropriate value for the lands in Naharpur Kasan and Kasan would
be Rs.39,54,666/- per acre12 in the year 2002.
B
27. The values in other three villages namely Bas Kusla, Bas
Haria and Dhana have not shown any such increase. Apart from Exh.P1,
P2 and P3, nothing has been placed on record, insofar as said villages
are concerned. As stated herein above, even for these villages we may
adopt the base rate of Rs.20.00 lakhs for the year 1994 and then consider
C the appropriate increase. As the sale deeds dated Exh. P1, P2 and P3 in
respect of lands coming from these villages have not shown any increase
at all, by way of rough and ready method we may adopt half the rise as
shown in the lands coming from villages Naharpur Kasan and Kasan.
Half the difference between Rs.20.00 lakhs as the base rate and
D Rs.39,54,666/- per acre13 adopted for the villages of Naharpur Kasan,
Kasan and Manewsar would mean difference of Rs.9,77,333/-14 over
the base figure of Rs.20.00 lakhs as awarded in Pran Sukh3. Thus, in
our considered view, the market value of lands from villages Bas Kusla,
Bas Haria and Dhana in 2002 must be at Rs.29,77,333/- per acre 15.
28. In respect of lands coming from village Manesar, the High
E Court had granted 50% rise over and above the market value in respect
of villages Naharpur Kasan and Kasan. The increase to that extent was
well justified as the lands in village Manesar are abutting National
Highway No.8 with excellent commercial potential. The grant of 50%
rise is not seriously objected by the State and as such we confirm the
F same. Thus 50% rise over the figures as applicable to villages Naharpur
Kasan and Kasan would lead us to the market value in respect of village
Manesar which would be Rs.59,31,999/- per acre16.
29. We, however, find it difficult to accept grant of further 30%
as severance charges to M/s. Kohli Holdings Private Limited. Normally
G
11
The figure was corrected in terms of Order dated 08.02.2019 in MA No. 299/2019.
12
The figure was corrected in terms of Order dated 08.02.2019 in MA No. 299/2019.
13
The figure was corrected in terms of Order dated 08.02.2019 in MA No. 299/2019.
14
The figure was corrected in terms of Order dated 08.02.2019 in MA No. 299/2019.
15
The figure was corrected in terms of Order dated 08.02.2019 in MA No. 299/2019.
16
H The figure was corrected in terms of Order dated 08.02.2019 in MA No. 299/2019.
WAZIR & ANR. v. STATE OF HARYANA 599
[UDAY UMESH LALIT, J.]

the additional component of compensation in terms of Section A
23(1)(thirdly) of the Act is granted when, a landholder suffers damage
as a result of acquisition to the extent that the holding that he is left with
stands comparatively diminished in terms of quality and value. For
instance, if a railway track is to be built through an agricultural land held
by a person, leaving two different halves with him, it would be impossible
B
for him to carry on agricultural operations at an optimum level. This
would lead to reduction in the value of the halves that he is left with. On
the other hand, in a case where part of the holding is acquired for which
appropriate commercial value is awarded, the rest of the value of the
land will not stand diminished in terms of commercial potential. On the
other hand, the potential of the remainder of the land would also increase C
drastically as the development would be right in the neighbourhood, thus
giving substantial benefit to the landholder. In our view, the High Court
was not justified in granting further compensation of 30% to M/s. Kohli
Holdings Private Limited on account of severance charges. We,
therefore, set aside that part and hold that no severance charges need
D
be awarded to M/s. Kohli Holdings Private Limited.
17
30. In the circumstances, we direct:
a) 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.
E
b) 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.
c) In respect of lands from village Manesar the market value
shall be Rs.59,31,999/- per acre. Additionally, all statutory F
benefits would be payable.
d) M/s. Kohli Holdings Private Limited shall not be entitled to
any severance charges.
e) If any sum in excess of what has been found in this Judgment
to be the entitlement of any landowner from any of the G
villages under acquisition was made over to him, the same
shall be returned by the landowner to the State by 30th June,
2019. If the excess sum is returned by 30th June, 2019, no

17
The figure was corrected in terms of Order dated 08.02.2019 in MA No. 299/2019. H
600 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 2 S.C.R.

A interest on said sum shall be payable by the landowner.
However, if the sum is not returned by said date, the said
sum shall carry interest @ 9% per annum from 1st July,
2019 till realisation and can be realised in a manner known
to law.
B 31. The appeals preferred by HSIIDC and the State of Haryana
stand allowed to the aforesaid extent. The appeals preferred by all the
landholders including M/s. Kohli Holdings Private Limited stand
dismissed. No costs. January 11, 201918.

Nidhi Jain Appeals disposed of.
C

D

E

F

G

18
With modifications as set out in Para 9 of Order dated 08.02.2019 passed in
H M.A. No. 299 of 2019 in CA Nos. 264-270 of 2019.