Ved & Anr. v. State of Haryana & Anr.

(i) The market value of the land falling in two villages, namely, Naurangpur and Lakhnoula is assessed @ Rs.48,46,000/- per acre alongwith all statutory benefits on 17.09.2004.

(ii) For the land falling in villages Nawada Fatehpur,

Naharpur Kasan and Shikohpur, the market value is fixed @ Rs.43,61,400/- per acre along with all statutory benefits on 17.09.2004.

(iii) The directions of the Apex Court in the case of

(iv) Where appeals have been filed by the land owners which were beyond period of limitation and applications have been filed for condoning the delay with a condition that the land owners will not be entitled for the interest during the said period, the Executive Court shall ensure that the amounts are calculated and disbursed, keeping in the view the said condition which have been passed in the case of each individual land owner.”

3. Being aggrieved, these appeals have been preferred by the landholders. No appeal has been preferred by the State or the Acquiring Body and thus, the scope of instant appeals is limited to consider whether the landholders are entitled to any enhancement in compensation.

4. It must be stated at the outset that with regard to Phases II, III and IV of the Industrial Model Township, Manesar, Gurgaon, acquisition proceedings were initiated in respect of lands falling in villages Naharpur Kasan, Kasan, Bas Kusla, Bas Haria, Dhana and Manesar by issuing Notifications dated 06.03.2002, 07.03.2002 and 26.02.2002 under Section 4 of the Act. The High Court vide its decision dated 09.03.2018 in Madan Pal III vs. State of Haryana[5], assessed the market value in respect of lands from villages Naharpur

Kasan, Kasan, Bas Kusla, Bas Haria, and Dhana (covered by Phases II and III) at Rs.41.40 lakhs per acre; while the value for lands from village Manesar (covered by Phase IV) was assessed at Rs.62.10 lakhs per acre. The appeals arising therefrom were decided by this Court vide its Judgment dated 11.01.2019[7] as modified by Order dated 08.02.2019[8] in Civil Appeal Nos.264- 270 of 2019 and other connected matters (Wazir and Another vs. State of Haryana[7] ) i.e., after the decision of the High Court which is presently under appeal. The relevant operative directions issued by this Court were:-

5. In these appeals, it was submitted on behalf of the landholders that:a) The lands from villages Naurangpur, Lakhnoula and Shikohpur being abutting National Highway No.8 towards Delhi and closer to Gurgaon than the lands from villages like Manesar, the lands from these villages were on a better footing. b) The lands had immense potentiality for residential and commercial purposes, being surrounded by many reputed Industrial Units, Resorts, Hotels and Farm houses. c) Certain Sale Deeds including Exhibit P.20 executed on 28.04.2004 showed value greater than what was assessed by the High Court. d) Even if, the valuation determined in Wazir and Another vs. State of Haryana[7] be taken as the base, after conferring cumulative increase for a period of 2 ½ years, the appropriate valuation for lands from village Naharpur Kasan would be:- “Notification dated 06.03.2002 in Wazir’s case awarded to Naharpur Yearly increment/Cumulative Interest for the period 2 years 6 months and 11 days 8% 10% 12% Rs.39,54,666/- per acre 48,08,795 50,39,544 52,787,392”

6. On the other hand, it was submitted by the State that the valuation arrived at and the discussion by the High Court on the point did not call for any interference.

7. In the instant case, the High Court considered Exhibit P13 concerning an extent of land admeasuring 8 Kanals and 8 Marlas in the limits of Village Lakhnoula and two Sale Deeds in respect of M/s Conway Developers Private Limited. (Exhibits P24 and P25). It also considered the assessment of market value made by it in respect of acquisition pertaining to Phases II, III and IV in its decision in Madan Pal III vs. State of Haryana[5] and finally arrived at the market value for the villages in question.

8. As a matter of fact, the assessment in Madan Pal III vs. State of Haryana[5] which was the foundation of the decision of the High Court in the present case, was scaled down by this Court in Wazir and Another vs. State of Haryana[7]. Therefore, theoretically, the market value arrived at by the High Court would be on the higher side.

9. Even then we proceed to consider the evidence placed on record to see if the landholders are right in seeking enhancement. Exhibit P-20 Sale Deed was rightly rejected by the Reference Court and the reasoning in that behalf, as quoted hereinabove is quite correct. The other Sale Deeds i.e. Exhibits P-13, P-24 and P-25, the extent of lands involved therein, their location and other features were considered by the High Court in right perspective and the matter calls for no interference. That leaves us to consider whether by adopting the method of annual increase over the values determined in connection with acquisition for Phases II, III and IV any advantage can still be conferred upon the landholders.

10. In General Manager, Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited vs. Rameshbhai Jivanbhai Patel and Another[9], this Court dealt with the issue of grant of annual increase and expressed caution in following words.:- “15. Normally, recourse is taken to the mode of determining the market value by providing appropriate escalation over the proved market value of nearby lands in previous years (as evidenced by sale transactions or acquisitions), where there is no evidence of any contemporaneous sale transactions or 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 to a neighbouring land. What may be a reliable standard if the gap is of only a few years, may become unsafe and unreliable standard where the gap is larger. For example, for determining the market value of a land acquired in 1992, adopting the annual increase method with reference to a sale or acquisition in 1970 or 1980 may have many pitfalls. This is because, over the course of years, the “rate” of annual increase may itself undergo drastic change apart from the likelihood of occurrence of varying periods of stagnation in prices or sudden spurts in prices affecting the very standard of increase.”

11. It is true that the process of determining the value by annual increase was considered as one of the alternatives in Wazir and Another vs. State of Haryana[7]. But in that case, three methods including one relating to cumulative annual increase were considered and that method which led to the highest valuation was adopted. But the law laid down in ONGC Ltd.[9] is quite clear. In case we go by the method of cumulative annual increase it would mean that cumulative increase over the valuation in Wazir and Another vs. State of Haryana[7] must displace the valuation based on Sale Deed, which is normally the safest method.

12. In the circumstances, the decision of the High Court which is presently under appeal calls for no interference and these appeals are dismissed without any order as to costs. ………..…..……..……J. (Uday Umesh Lalit)..………….……………J. (Vineet Saran) New Delhi; April 08, 2021