As per case facts, land was acquired for a southern periphery road and green belt, with the initial award later enhanced by the Reference Court. Dissatisfied with this, both landowners ...
No Acts & Articles mentioned in this case
RFA-6847
118 (31 cases)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
M/s EFY Enterprises Private Limited
State of Haryana and another
CORAM:
Present:
HARKESH MANUJA, J. (ORAL)
1.
Appeals, details of which are given in the footnote of this judgment,
are being decided as all the appeals have arisen out of common
acquisition/Award involving similar facts and question of law. For the
sake of brevity,
2.
appellants/landowners as well as Respondent State, challenge has
6847-2013 (O&M) & 30 other appeals
cases)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
*****
Date of Decision: 1
RFA No.
M/s EFY Enterprises Private Limited
Versus
State of Haryana and another
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA
Present: Mr. Shailendra Jain, Sr. Advocate with
Mr. Rahul, Advocate, (RFA
RFA-4423-2015 & RFA-3705
Mr. Rajbir Singh, Advocate for
Mr. Abhimanyu Singh, Advocate
(RFAs-1015, 6570 of 2015)
Mr. Sanjay Vij, Advocate (RFA
Mr. Kunal Dawar, Advocate and
Mr. Vipul Sharma, Advocate
(RFAs-7088 to 7095 of 2013)
for the appellants/landowners.
Mr. Abhinash Jain, DAG, Haryana.
---
HARKESH MANUJA, J. (ORAL)
Vide this common order, a bunch of 31
Appeals, details of which are given in the footnote of this judgment,
are being decided as all the appeals have arisen out of common
acquisition/Award involving similar facts and question of law. For the
sake of brevity, facts are being taken from
By way of present appeal(s) preferred at the instance of
appellants/landowners as well as Respondent State, challenge has
2013 (O&M) & 30 other appeals [1]
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Date of Decision: 16.10.2025
RFA No. 6847of 2013 (O&M)
M/s EFY Enterprises Private Limited …….Appellant
Versus
..….Respondents
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA
Mr. Shailendra Jain, Sr. Advocate with
Mr. Rahul, Advocate, (RFA-7149-2013, RFA-595-2014,
3705-2016)
Mr. Rajbir Singh, Advocate for
Mr. Abhimanyu Singh, Advocate
2015)
Mr. Sanjay Vij, Advocate (RFA-6847-2013)
Mr. Kunal Dawar, Advocate and
Mr. Vipul Sharma, Advocate
7088 to 7095 of 2013)
for the appellants/landowners.
Mr. Abhinash Jain, DAG, Haryana.
order, a bunch of 31 Regular First
Appeals, details of which are given in the footnote of this judgment,
are being decided as all the appeals have arisen out of common
acquisition/Award involving similar facts and question of law. For the
facts are being taken from RFA No.6847 of 2013.
By way of present appeal(s) preferred at the instance of
appellants/landowners as well as Respondent State, challenge has
2014,
Regular First
Appeals, details of which are given in the footnote of this judgment,
are being decided as all the appeals have arisen out of common
acquisition/Award involving similar facts and question of law. For the
By way of present appeal(s) preferred at the instance of
appellants/landowners as well as Respondent State, challenge has
RFA-6847
been laid to the decision dated 05.07.2013 passed by the learned
Additional Distri
modification of the same.
3.
estates of Village Narsinghpur, Tehsil and District Gurgaon (now
‘Gurugram’), was acquired by the Government of Haryana v
notifications dated 25.11.2008 and 07.01.2009 issued under Sections
4 and 6, of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, for short ‘the Act’
respectively, for public purpose i.e. for the development and
utilization of land for 90 meters wide southern periphery
with 30 meters wide Green belt on both sides from National Highway
No.8 upto Sector 72 at Gurugram”. The Land Acquisition Collector,
(for short ‘the LAC’) vide award dated 24.11.2009 assessed the
market value in respect of the acquired land @ Rs
acre for all types of land besides granting other statutory benefits
under the Act.
4.
appellants/landowners filed reference petitions invoking Section 18 of
the Act, which came to be disposed
05.07.2013 by the learned Reference Court while determining the
market value of the acquired land at the uniform rate of
Rs.1,30,68,800/
under the Act.
6847-2013 (O&M) & 30 other appeals
been laid to the decision dated 05.07.2013 passed by the learned
Additional District Judge, Gurgaon
modification of the same.
Briefly stating, 24.79 acres of land situated within revenue
estates of Village Narsinghpur, Tehsil and District Gurgaon (now
‘Gurugram’), was acquired by the Government of Haryana v
notifications dated 25.11.2008 and 07.01.2009 issued under Sections
4 and 6, of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, for short ‘the Act’
respectively, for public purpose i.e. for the development and
utilization of land for 90 meters wide southern periphery
with 30 meters wide Green belt on both sides from National Highway
No.8 upto Sector 72 at Gurugram”. The Land Acquisition Collector,
(for short ‘the LAC’) vide award dated 24.11.2009 assessed the
market value in respect of the acquired land @ Rs
acre for all types of land besides granting other statutory benefits
under the Act.
Dissatisfied with the aforesaid Award, the
appellants/landowners filed reference petitions invoking Section 18 of
the Act, which came to be disposed
05.07.2013 by the learned Reference Court while determining the
market value of the acquired land at the uniform rate of
Rs.1,30,68,800/- per acre besides granting all other statutory benefits
under the Act.
2013 (O&M) & 30 other appeals [2]
been laid to the decision dated 05.07.2013 passed by the learned
ct Judge, Gurgaon-cum-Reference Court, for
Briefly stating, 24.79 acres of land situated within revenue
estates of Village Narsinghpur, Tehsil and District Gurgaon (now
‘Gurugram’), was acquired by the Government of Haryana v
notifications dated 25.11.2008 and 07.01.2009 issued under Sections
4 and 6, of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, for short ‘the Act’
respectively, for public purpose i.e. for the development and
utilization of land for 90 meters wide southern periphery road along
with 30 meters wide Green belt on both sides from National Highway
No.8 upto Sector 72 at Gurugram”. The Land Acquisition Collector,
(for short ‘the LAC’) vide award dated 24.11.2009 assessed the
market value in respect of the acquired land @ Rs.70,00,000/- per
acre for all types of land besides granting other statutory benefits
Dissatisfied with the aforesaid Award, the
appellants/landowners filed reference petitions invoking Section 18 of
the Act, which came to be disposed of vide decision dated
05.07.2013 by the learned Reference Court while determining the
market value of the acquired land at the uniform rate of
per acre besides granting all other statutory benefits
been laid to the decision dated 05.07.2013 passed by the learned
Reference Court, for
Briefly stating, 24.79 acres of land situated within revenue
estates of Village Narsinghpur, Tehsil and District Gurgaon (now
‘Gurugram’), was acquired by the Government of Haryana vide
notifications dated 25.11.2008 and 07.01.2009 issued under Sections
4 and 6, of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, for short ‘the Act’
respectively, for public purpose i.e. for the development and
road along
with 30 meters wide Green belt on both sides from National Highway
No.8 upto Sector 72 at Gurugram”. The Land Acquisition Collector,
(for short ‘the LAC’) vide award dated 24.11.2009 assessed the
per
acre for all types of land besides granting other statutory benefits
Dissatisfied with the aforesaid Award, the
appellants/landowners filed reference petitions invoking Section 18 of
vide decision dated
05.07.2013 by the learned Reference Court while determining the
market value of the acquired land at the uniform rate of
per acre besides granting all other statutory benefits
RFA-6847
5.
Court, the present appeals were preferred at the instance of
appellants/landowners as well as respondent
6.
appellants/ landowners submits that the Reference Court
while ignoring the various sale instances proved on record by the
landowners as per which the highest market price of the acquired
land was Rs.4.25 crores per acre. Learned senior counsel further
contends that instead of determining the market
basis of the sale consideration of sale instance dated 08.10.2008
(Ex.P21), the learned Reference Court should have relied upon other
sale instances Exs. P
105 kanal 12 marla of land in total,
Village Narsinghpur, Tehsil and District Gurgaon was sold at the
average price of Rs.4.25 crores per acre.
6.1
present case, no cut towards development cost was requir
applied as the acquisition was carried out for the public purpose of
laying down of sector roads and the respondent State was not going
to suffer any cost towards development or providing civic amenities.
In support, he places reliance upon the ju
Court - Anjani Molu Dessai Vs. State of Goa and another
as (2010) 13 SCC 710
6847-2013 (O&M) & 30 other appeals
Aggrieved against the decision by the learned Reference
Court, the present appeals were preferred at the instance of
appellants/landowners as well as respondent
Learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the
appellants/ landowners submits that the Reference Court
while ignoring the various sale instances proved on record by the
landowners as per which the highest market price of the acquired
land was Rs.4.25 crores per acre. Learned senior counsel further
contends that instead of determining the market
basis of the sale consideration of sale instance dated 08.10.2008
(Ex.P21), the learned Reference Court should have relied upon other
sale instances Exs. P-7 to P-11 dated 09.04.2007, whereby around
105 kanal 12 marla of land in total, pertaining to the revenue estate of
Village Narsinghpur, Tehsil and District Gurgaon was sold at the
average price of Rs.4.25 crores per acre.
Learned Senior counsel further submits that in the
present case, no cut towards development cost was requir
applied as the acquisition was carried out for the public purpose of
laying down of sector roads and the respondent State was not going
to suffer any cost towards development or providing civic amenities.
In support, he places reliance upon the ju
Anjani Molu Dessai Vs. State of Goa and another
(2010) 13 SCC 710. Paragraphs 10 and 11 thereof being relevant
2013 (O&M) & 30 other appeals [3]
decision by the learned Reference
Court, the present appeals were preferred at the instance of
appellants/landowners as well as respondent-State.
Learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the
appellants/ landowners submits that the Reference Court went wrong
while ignoring the various sale instances proved on record by the
landowners as per which the highest market price of the acquired
land was Rs.4.25 crores per acre. Learned senior counsel further
contends that instead of determining the market value solely on the
basis of the sale consideration of sale instance dated 08.10.2008
(Ex.P21), the learned Reference Court should have relied upon other
11 dated 09.04.2007, whereby around
pertaining to the revenue estate of
Village Narsinghpur, Tehsil and District Gurgaon was sold at the
average price of Rs.4.25 crores per acre.
Learned Senior counsel further submits that in the
present case, no cut towards development cost was required to be
applied as the acquisition was carried out for the public purpose of
laying down of sector roads and the respondent State was not going
to suffer any cost towards development or providing civic amenities.
In support, he places reliance upon the judgment of Hon’ble Apex
Anjani Molu Dessai Vs. State of Goa and another reported
. Paragraphs 10 and 11 thereof being relevant
decision by the learned Reference
Court, the present appeals were preferred at the instance of
Learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the
went wrong
while ignoring the various sale instances proved on record by the
landowners as per which the highest market price of the acquired
land was Rs.4.25 crores per acre. Learned senior counsel further
value solely on the
basis of the sale consideration of sale instance dated 08.10.2008
(Ex.P21), the learned Reference Court should have relied upon other
11 dated 09.04.2007, whereby around
pertaining to the revenue estate of
Village Narsinghpur, Tehsil and District Gurgaon was sold at the
Learned Senior counsel further submits that in the
ed to be
applied as the acquisition was carried out for the public purpose of
laying down of sector roads and the respondent State was not going
to suffer any cost towards development or providing civic amenities.
dgment of Hon’ble Apex
reported
. Paragraphs 10 and 11 thereof being relevant
RFA-6847
are extracted hereunder:
6847-2013 (O&M) & 30 other appeals
are extracted hereunder:-
“10. The Land Acquisition Collector however
committed a serious error in ded
from the sale price disclosed by the Sale
Deed dated 30.8.1989 towards the cost of
development. It is well settled that deduction
for development cost has to be made only
where the value of a small
residential/commercial/industrial plot of land
in a developed layout is made the basis for
arriving at the market value of a nearly large
tract of undeveloped agricultural land.
Where the land sold under the relied upon
sale deed and the acquired lands are both
are of similar nature (as in this case wh
both are bharad lands) the question of
making any deduction towards development
cost to arrive at the cost of `undeveloped
land' would not arise. Such a deduction
would have been necessary if the sale deed
relied upon related to a developed
residential or commercial plot. Therefore, we
are of the view that the Land Acquisition
Collector was not justified in making 45%
deduction from the price disclosed by the
Sale Deed dated 30.8.1989.
11. The Sale Deed relied upon by the Land
Acquisition Collector was dated 30.8.1989.
The relevant date for determination of
compensation is 30.7.1991. Having regard
2013 (O&M) & 30 other appeals [4]
The Land Acquisition Collector however
committed a serious error in deducting 45%
from the sale price disclosed by the Sale
Deed dated 30.8.1989 towards the cost of
development. It is well settled that deduction
for development cost has to be made only
where the value of a small
residential/commercial/industrial plot of land
in a developed layout is made the basis for
arriving at the market value of a nearly large
tract of undeveloped agricultural land.
Where the land sold under the relied upon
sale deed and the acquired lands are both
are of similar nature (as in this case where
both are bharad lands) the question of
making any deduction towards development
cost to arrive at the cost of `undeveloped
land' would not arise. Such a deduction
would have been necessary if the sale deed
relied upon related to a developed
or commercial plot. Therefore, we
are of the view that the Land Acquisition
Collector was not justified in making 45%
deduction from the price disclosed by the
Sale Deed dated 30.8.1989.
The Sale Deed relied upon by the Land
Acquisition Collector was dated 30.8.1989.
The relevant date for determination of
compensation is 30.7.1991. Having regard
The Land Acquisition Collector however
ucting 45%
from the sale price disclosed by the Sale
Deed dated 30.8.1989 towards the cost of
development. It is well settled that deduction
for development cost has to be made only
where the value of a small
residential/commercial/industrial plot of land
in a developed layout is made the basis for
arriving at the market value of a nearly large
tract of undeveloped agricultural land.
Where the land sold under the relied upon
sale deed and the acquired lands are both
ere
both are bharad lands) the question of
making any deduction towards development
cost to arrive at the cost of `undeveloped
land' would not arise. Such a deduction
would have been necessary if the sale deed
relied upon related to a developed
or commercial plot. Therefore, we
are of the view that the Land Acquisition
Collector was not justified in making 45%
deduction from the price disclosed by the
The Sale Deed relied upon by the Land
Acquisition Collector was dated 30.8.1989.
The relevant date for determination of
compensation is 30.7.1991. Having regard
RFA-6847
6.2
been a time gap of around 19 months between the date of sale
exemplars Exs.P7 to P11, all dated 09.04.2007
notification under Section 4 of the Act in the present case i.e.
25.11.2008 and as such an appreciation @ 15% per annum is
required to be granted in favour of the landowners over the sale price
derived from such sale exemplars.
7.
learned Reference Court went wrong while discarding the sale
instance Ex.R
land within the revenue estate of Village Narsinghpur was sold for
6847-2013 (O&M) & 30 other appeals
to the fact that acquired lands were in an
urbanisable area with readily available
infrastructural facilities, we are of the view
that the cumulative increase of 14.5% per
annum adopted by the Collector in his
award, would be appropriate. By providing
such increase, for two years, we would be
able to arrive at the market value of the
acquired land a
of the preliminary notification. By providing
such appreciation at 14.5% for two years on
the base price of Rs.43.80 per sq.m. the
market value as on 30.7.1991 for the
acquired bharad lands would be Rs.57.42,
rounded of to Rs.5
Learned Senior Counsel also points out that there has
been a time gap of around 19 months between the date of sale
exemplars Exs.P7 to P11, all dated 09.04.2007
notification under Section 4 of the Act in the present case i.e.
25.11.2008 and as such an appreciation @ 15% per annum is
required to be granted in favour of the landowners over the sale price
derived from such sale exemplars.
On the other hand, learned State counsel submits that the
learned Reference Court went wrong while discarding the sale
instance Ex.R-1 dated 17.07.2008 vide which 6 kanals 9 marlas of
land within the revenue estate of Village Narsinghpur was sold for
2013 (O&M) & 30 other appeals [5]
to the fact that acquired lands were in an
urbanisable area with readily available
ral facilities, we are of the view
that the cumulative increase of 14.5% per
annum adopted by the Collector in his
award, would be appropriate. By providing
such increase, for two years, we would be
able to arrive at the market value of the
acquired land as on the date of publication
of the preliminary notification. By providing
such appreciation at 14.5% for two years on
the base price of Rs.43.80 per sq.m. the
market value as on 30.7.1991 for the
acquired bharad lands would be Rs.57.42,
rounded of to Rs.57.50 per sq.m.”
Learned Senior Counsel also points out that there has
been a time gap of around 19 months between the date of sale
exemplars Exs.P7 to P11, all dated 09.04.2007 and the date of
notification under Section 4 of the Act in the present case i.e.
25.11.2008 and as such an appreciation @ 15% per annum is
required to be granted in favour of the landowners over the sale price
r hand, learned State counsel submits that the
learned Reference Court went wrong while discarding the sale
1 dated 17.07.2008 vide which 6 kanals 9 marlas of
land within the revenue estate of Village Narsinghpur was sold for
to the fact that acquired lands were in an
urbanisable area with readily available
ral facilities, we are of the view
that the cumulative increase of 14.5% per
annum adopted by the Collector in his
award, would be appropriate. By providing
such increase, for two years, we would be
able to arrive at the market value of the
s on the date of publication
of the preliminary notification. By providing
such appreciation at 14.5% for two years on
the base price of Rs.43.80 per sq.m. the
market value as on 30.7.1991 for the
acquired bharad lands would be Rs.57.42,
Learned Senior Counsel also points out that there has
been a time gap of around 19 months between the date of sale
the date of
notification under Section 4 of the Act in the present case i.e.
25.11.2008 and as such an appreciation @ 15% per annum is
required to be granted in favour of the landowners over the sale price
r hand, learned State counsel submits that the
learned Reference Court went wrong while discarding the sale
1 dated 17.07.2008 vide which 6 kanals 9 marlas of
land within the revenue estate of Village Narsinghpur was sold for
RFA-6847
Rs.48,38,500/
also contends that the land forming part of Ex.R1 was situated
adjoining to the acquired land; at a distance of around 1½ acres only.
He thus submits that the LAC vide its Award dated 24.11.2009 having
assessed the market value @ Rs.70,00,000/
interference was called for by the learned Reference Court granting
any further enhancement and the impugned Award was, therefore,
liable to be set aside.
7.1
on record by the landowners, learned State counsel submits that
there was an abnormal increase in the sale price of land from Rs.2.30
crore to Rs.4.25 crore per acre in a short span of one month i.e.
between 12.03.2007 to 17.04.2007. He thus co
transactions were entered into between the landowners and the
developers for drawing benefit towards higher market value and as
such did not reflect the correct market price from the perspective of a
genuine buyer and, therefore, cann
places reliance upon a decision made by this Court in
3710 and 4335 of 2018
of Haryana
therefrom is extracted h
6847-2013 (O&M) & 30 other appeals
Rs.48,38,500/- and the market price per acre was Rs.60 lakhs. He
also contends that the land forming part of Ex.R1 was situated
adjoining to the acquired land; at a distance of around 1½ acres only.
He thus submits that the LAC vide its Award dated 24.11.2009 having
sed the market value @ Rs.70,00,000/
interference was called for by the learned Reference Court granting
any further enhancement and the impugned Award was, therefore,
liable to be set aside.
While pointing out towards the sale instanc
on record by the landowners, learned State counsel submits that
there was an abnormal increase in the sale price of land from Rs.2.30
crore to Rs.4.25 crore per acre in a short span of one month i.e.
between 12.03.2007 to 17.04.2007. He thus co
transactions were entered into between the landowners and the
developers for drawing benefit towards higher market value and as
such did not reflect the correct market price from the perspective of a
genuine buyer and, therefore, cannot be relied upon. In support, he
places reliance upon a decision made by this Court in
3710 and 4335 of 2018, titled as Hari Parkash and others Vs. State
of Haryana and others, decided on 22.11.2019.
therefrom is extracted hereunder:-
“The principle of 50% cut is to be applied on the
sale deed which is in favour of the building keeping in
view the keenness of the builders to acquire property
2013 (O&M) & 30 other appeals [6]
nd the market price per acre was Rs.60 lakhs. He
also contends that the land forming part of Ex.R1 was situated
adjoining to the acquired land; at a distance of around 1½ acres only.
He thus submits that the LAC vide its Award dated 24.11.2009 having
sed the market value @ Rs.70,00,000/ - per acre; no
interference was called for by the learned Reference Court granting
any further enhancement and the impugned Award was, therefore,
While pointing out towards the sale instances produced
on record by the landowners, learned State counsel submits that
there was an abnormal increase in the sale price of land from Rs.2.30
crore to Rs.4.25 crore per acre in a short span of one month i.e.
between 12.03.2007 to 17.04.2007. He thus contends that said sale
transactions were entered into between the landowners and the
developers for drawing benefit towards higher market value and as
such did not reflect the correct market price from the perspective of a
ot be relied upon. In support, he
places reliance upon a decision made by this Court in RFA Nos.
Hari Parkash and others Vs. State
and others, decided on 22.11.2019. The relevant portion
“The principle of 50% cut is to be applied on the
sale deed which is in favour of the building keeping in
view the keenness of the builders to acquire property
nd the market price per acre was Rs.60 lakhs. He
also contends that the land forming part of Ex.R1 was situated
adjoining to the acquired land; at a distance of around 1½ acres only.
He thus submits that the LAC vide its Award dated 24.11.2009 having
per acre; no
interference was called for by the learned Reference Court granting
any further enhancement and the impugned Award was, therefore,
es produced
on record by the landowners, learned State counsel submits that
there was an abnormal increase in the sale price of land from Rs.2.30
crore to Rs.4.25 crore per acre in a short span of one month i.e.
ntends that said sale
transactions were entered into between the landowners and the
developers for drawing benefit towards higher market value and as
such did not reflect the correct market price from the perspective of a
ot be relied upon. In support, he
RFA Nos.
Hari Parkash and others Vs. State
The relevant portion
“The principle of 50% cut is to be applied on the
sale deed which is in favour of the building keeping in
view the keenness of the builders to acquire property
RFA-6847
7.2
may in the present case, development cut of at least 50% was
required to be applied over the sale price derived from the sale deeds
produced on record by the appellants/ landowners. In support he
places reliance upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in
Kanwar and others Vs. State of Haryana and another
2015 (1) RCR (Civil) 234
State counsel, is extracted hereunder:
8.
through the paper
6847-2013 (O&M) & 30 other appeals
in developing area.”
Learned State counsel further submits that be that as it
may in the present case, development cut of at least 50% was
required to be applied over the sale price derived from the sale deeds
produced on record by the appellants/ landowners. In support he
ces reliance upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in
Kanwar and others Vs. State of Haryana and another
2015 (1) RCR (Civil) 234. Para 19 thereof, as relied upon by learned
State counsel, is extracted hereunder:
“19. In the instant case, though the sale deeds were
for part of lands which were acquired by the
acquiring authority under the notification, the
said sale deeds indicated an abnormal increase
of more than 100% in less than four months. It
is not a far reaching implication of
being in the vicinity of area under development
or already developed, which attributed
additional locational advantages leading to
escalation of the sale price at which a buyer
would purchase the lands. Another fact noticed
by the High Court
sale transactions had vested interest in the land
adjoining or around the properties in such
transaction.”
No other argument has been addressed.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone
through the paper book.
2013 (O&M) & 30 other appeals [7]
Learned State counsel further submits that be that as it
may in the present case, development cut of at least 50% was
required to be applied over the sale price derived from the sale deeds
produced on record by the appellants/ landowners. In support he
ces reliance upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Ram
Kanwar and others Vs. State of Haryana and another reported as
. Para 19 thereof, as relied upon by learned
State counsel, is extracted hereunder:-
case, though the sale deeds were
for part of lands which were acquired by the
acquiring authority under the notification, the
said sale deeds indicated an abnormal increase
of more than 100% in less than four months. It
is not a far reaching implication of the said land
being in the vicinity of area under development
or already developed, which attributed
additional locational advantages leading to
escalation of the sale price at which a buyer
would purchase the lands. Another fact noticed
by the High Court is that the buyers for all these
sale transactions had vested interest in the land
adjoining or around the properties in such
No other argument has been addressed.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone
Learned State counsel further submits that be that as it
may in the present case, development cut of at least 50% was
required to be applied over the sale price derived from the sale deeds
produced on record by the appellants/ landowners. In support he
Ram
reported as
. Para 19 thereof, as relied upon by learned
case, though the sale deeds were
for part of lands which were acquired by the
acquiring authority under the notification, the
said sale deeds indicated an abnormal increase
of more than 100% in less than four months. It
the said land
being in the vicinity of area under development
or already developed, which attributed
additional locational advantages leading to
escalation of the sale price at which a buyer
would purchase the lands. Another fact noticed
is that the buyers for all these
sale transactions had vested interest in the land
adjoining or around the properties in such
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone
RFA-6847
9.
the chart of sale deeds which were proved on record by the
appellants/ landowners before the learned Reference Court and
noted in paragraph 16 of the impugned Award. The same are
extracted hereunder:
Sr.
No.
Exh.
1. P4/P13
2. P5/P14
3. P6/P15
4. P7/P16
5. P8/P17
6. P9/P18
7. P10/P8A
/P19
8. P11/P20
9. P21
10. P22
11. P6A
12. P7A
10.
today, has referred to an
and District Gurugram, duly prepared by the concerned revenue
authorities depicting the exact location of the land forming part of the
sale deeds produced by the appellants/ landowners and those of the
respondent State in co
6847-2013 (O&M) & 30 other appeals
Before proceeding further, it would be relevant to examine
the chart of sale deeds which were proved on record by the
appellants/ landowners before the learned Reference Court and
noted in paragraph 16 of the impugned Award. The same are
d hereunder:-
Vasik
a No.
Date Lan
d
Area
K
P4/P13 10528 17.08.2006 3
P5/P14 10529 17.08.2006 18
P6/P15 25732 12.03.2009 19
P7/P16 632 09.04.2007 4
P8/P17 623 09.04.2007 12
P9/P18 630 09.04.2007 3
P10/P8A
621 09.04.2007 24
P11/P20 629 09.04.2007 61
15890 08.10.2008 1
2375 14.05.2009 0
9664 02.08.2006 19
10818 22.08.2006 28
For the assistance of this Court, learned State counsel,
today, has referred to an aks shajra
and District Gurugram, duly prepared by the concerned revenue
authorities depicting the exact location of the land forming part of the
sale deeds produced by the appellants/ landowners and those of the
respondent State in comparison to the land under acquisition. The
2013 (O&M) & 30 other appeals [8]
Before proceeding further, it would be relevant to examine
the chart of sale deeds which were proved on record by the
appellants/ landowners before the learned Reference Court and
noted in paragraph 16 of the impugned Award. The same are
Total sale
considera-
tion
Rate per
acre
Revenue
estate
M
6 94,87,500 2,30,00,000 Narsingh
pur
1.5 5,19,65,625 2,30,00,000 Narsingh
pur
15.5 6,26,02,785 2,53,26,032 Narsingh
pur
11 2,41,71,875 4,25,00,000 Narsingh
pur
4 6,48,12,500 4,25,00,000 Narsingh
pur
17 2,04,53,125 4,25,00,000 Narsingh
pur
0 12,75,00,00
0
4,25,00,000 Narsingh
pur
0 32,40,62,50
0
4,25,00,000 Narsingh
pur
10 40,84,000 2,17,81,333 Narsingh
pur
16 25,50,000 2,55,00,000 Narsingh
pur
06 6,04,56,250 2,50,59,585 Narsingh
pur
3.5 8,10,00,312 2,29,99,201 Narsingh
pur
For the assistance of this Court, learned State counsel,
shajra of Village Narsinghpur, Tehsil
and District Gurugram, duly prepared by the concerned revenue
authorities depicting the exact location of the land forming part of the
sale deeds produced by the appellants/ landowners and those of the
mparison to the land under acquisition. The
Before proceeding further, it would be relevant to examine
the chart of sale deeds which were proved on record by the
appellants/ landowners before the learned Reference Court and
noted in paragraph 16 of the impugned Award. The same are
Revenue
estate
Narsingh
pur
Narsingh
pur
Narsingh
pur
Narsingh
pur
Narsingh
pur
Narsingh
pur
Narsingh
pur
Narsingh
pur
Narsingh
pur
Narsingh
pur
Narsingh
pur
Narsingh
pur
For the assistance of this Court, learned State counsel,
of Village Narsinghpur, Tehsil
and District Gurugram, duly prepared by the concerned revenue
authorities depicting the exact location of the land forming part of the
sale deeds produced by the appellants/ landowners and those of the
mparison to the land under acquisition. The
RFA-6847
said aks
officials as well as the learned State counsel with no objections by the
Learned counsel for the appellants
record as
11.
sale instance Ex.P21 which was relied upon by the learned
Reference Court for the purpose of determination of market value is
situated far from the land under acquisition. In fact, the land forming
part of sale deed Ex.P21 is
Highway.
17.07.2008 as per the aksshajra(Mark ‘X’) is situated around 1 acre
away from the land under present acquisition. However, on the other
hand, a
Exs. P4 to P6 and Exs.P8 to P11 show that these sale transactions
partially or completely form part of the acquired land
circumstances, relying upon the law laid down by the Hon’ble
Court in the case of
SCC Online SC 2990
of the sale exemplars i.e.
09.04.2007
the present case
within the same revenue estate of Village Narsinghpur had been sold
at an average price of Rs.4.25 crores per acre. The relevant paras 27
6847-2013 (O&M) & 30 other appeals
aks shajra been counter-signed by the concerned revenue
officials as well as the learned State counsel with no objections by the
Learned counsel for the appellants-landowners, and thus, is taken on
record as Mark ‘X’.
A perusal of the aks shajra
sale instance Ex.P21 which was relied upon by the learned
Reference Court for the purpose of determination of market value is
situated far from the land under acquisition. In fact, the land forming
part of sale deed Ex.P21 is on towards the other side of the National
Highway. Further, the land forming part of sale instance Ex.R1 dated
17.07.2008 as per the aksshajra(Mark ‘X’) is situated around 1 acre
away from the land under present acquisition. However, on the other
perusal of the aksshajra(Mark ‘X’) and the sale instances
Exs. P4 to P6 and Exs.P8 to P11 show that these sale transactions
partially or completely form part of the acquired land
circumstances, relying upon the law laid down by the Hon’ble
Court in the case of Horrmal v. State of Haryana
SCC Online SC 2990, reliance needs to be placed upon the highest
of the sale exemplars i.e. Exs.P8 to P11, which are all dated
09.04.2007 being prior to the notification under section
the present case. Moreover, more than 100 kanals of land situated
within the same revenue estate of Village Narsinghpur had been sold
at an average price of Rs.4.25 crores per acre. The relevant paras 27
2013 (O&M) & 30 other appeals [9]
signed by the concerned revenue
officials as well as the learned State counsel with no objections by the
landowners, and thus, is taken on
shajra, i.e. Mark ‘X’ shows that the
sale instance Ex.P21 which was relied upon by the learned
Reference Court for the purpose of determination of market value is
situated far from the land under acquisition. In fact, the land forming
on towards the other side of the National
Further, the land forming part of sale instance Ex.R1 dated
17.07.2008 as per the aksshajra(Mark ‘X’) is situated around 1 acre
away from the land under present acquisition. However, on the other
perusal of the aksshajra(Mark ‘X’) and the sale instances
Exs. P4 to P6 and Exs.P8 to P11 show that these sale transactions
partially or completely form part of the acquired land itself. In such
circumstances, relying upon the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex
Horrmal v. State of Haryana, reported as 2024
, reliance needs to be placed upon the highest
Exs.P8 to P11, which are all dated
being prior to the notification under section 4 of the Act in
more than 100 kanals of land situated
within the same revenue estate of Village Narsinghpur had been sold
at an average price of Rs.4.25 crores per acre. The relevant paras 27
signed by the concerned revenue
officials as well as the learned State counsel with no objections by the
landowners, and thus, is taken on
, i.e. Mark ‘X’ shows that the
sale instance Ex.P21 which was relied upon by the learned
Reference Court for the purpose of determination of market value is
situated far from the land under acquisition. In fact, the land forming
on towards the other side of the National
Further, the land forming part of sale instance Ex.R1 dated
17.07.2008 as per the aksshajra(Mark ‘X’) is situated around 1 acre
away from the land under present acquisition. However, on the other
perusal of the aksshajra(Mark ‘X’) and the sale instances
Exs. P4 to P6 and Exs.P8 to P11 show that these sale transactions
itself. In such
Apex
2024
, reliance needs to be placed upon the highest
Exs.P8 to P11, which are all dated
4 of the Act in
more than 100 kanals of land situated
within the same revenue estate of Village Narsinghpur had been sold
at an average price of Rs.4.25 crores per acre. The relevant paras 27
RFA-6847
to 29 from
6847-2013 (O&M) & 30 other appeals
to 29 from Horrmal’s case (supra) are extracted hereunder:
“27. In the instant case, there are multiple sale deeds of
smaller plots, and these represent the bestavailable
evidence for estimating compensation. Since there is
no legal impediment to considering suchsale deeds,
the logical progression in the compensation
estimation process would be to identify the
mostsuitable sale deed(s) for determining the market
value and subsequently, to apply adequate
deductionson the same. The solution to this state of
flux may thus be found in the case
Khewaji Trust v. State of Punjab
432 where this Court laid down as follows:
....It is clear that when there are several
exemplars with reference to similar lands, it is
thegeneral rule that the highest of the
exemplars, if it is
transaction,has to be considered and accepted.
When the land is being compulsorily taken
away from aperson, he is entitled to the highest
value which similar land in the locality is shown
to havefetched in a bona fide trans
entered into between a willing purchaser and a
willing seller.
28. This view has been reiterated in Sh. Himmat Singh v.
State of M.P., (2013) 16 SCC 392where athree
bench of this Court consolidated various precedents
to affirm that in circumst
multiple sale deeds available for consideration, the
Court shall rely on the highest valuedexemplars
unless the prices fall within a narrow range, in which
case calculating an average of thevalues therein may
be more congruous.
2013 (O&M) & 30 other appeals [10]
re extracted hereunder:-
In the instant case, there are multiple sale deeds of
smaller plots, and these represent the bestavailable
evidence for estimating compensation. Since there is
no legal impediment to considering suchsale deeds,
gression in the compensation
estimation process would be to identify the
mostsuitable sale deed(s) for determining the market
value and subsequently, to apply adequate
deductionson the same. The solution to this state of
flux may thus be found in the case of Mehrawal
Khewaji Trust v. State of Punjab, (2012) 5 SCC
432 where this Court laid down as follows:
....It is clear that when there are several
exemplars with reference to similar lands, it is
thegeneral rule that the highest of the
exemplars, if it is satisfied that it is a bona fide
transaction,has to be considered and accepted.
When the land is being compulsorily taken
away from aperson, he is entitled to the highest
value which similar land in the locality is shown
to havefetched in a bona fide transaction
entered into between a willing purchaser and a
This view has been reiterated in Sh. Himmat Singh v.
State of M.P., (2013) 16 SCC 392where athree-judge
bench of this Court consolidated various precedents
to affirm that in circumstances wherethere are
multiple sale deeds available for consideration, the
Court shall rely on the highest valuedexemplars
unless the prices fall within a narrow range, in which
case calculating an average of thevalues therein may
In the instant case, there are multiple sale deeds of
smaller plots, and these represent the bestavailable
evidence for estimating compensation. Since there is
no legal impediment to considering suchsale deeds,
gression in the compensation
estimation process would be to identify the
mostsuitable sale deed(s) for determining the market
value and subsequently, to apply adequate
deductionson the same. The solution to this state of
Mehrawal
, (2012) 5 SCC
....It is clear that when there are several
exemplars with reference to similar lands, it is
thegeneral rule that the highest of the
satisfied that it is a bona fide
transaction,has to be considered and accepted.
When the land is being compulsorily taken
away from aperson, he is entitled to the highest
value which similar land in the locality is shown
action
entered into between a willing purchaser and a
This view has been reiterated in Sh. Himmat Singh v.
judge
bench of this Court consolidated various precedents
ances wherethere are
multiple sale deeds available for consideration, the
Court shall rely on the highest valuedexemplars
unless the prices fall within a narrow range, in which
case calculating an average of thevalues therein may
RFA-6847
12.
necessitated taking into account the highest sale exemplar, the sale
instance dated 17.07.2008 (Ex.P1) which has been relied upon by the
respondent State needs to be ignored. A perusal of record shows that
admittedly, the sale instances Exs. P8 to P11 which partially formed
part of the acquired land, the transactions were entered between the
landowners and the private builders. However, no
whatsoever has been led by the respondent State to create any
about the genuineness or bona fide nature of the said sale
transactions. Thus, in the absence of there being any evidence on
record to establish that such sale transactions were g
the landowners for the purpose of drawing any kind of uncalled
benefit towards getting higher market value, the same cannot be
discarded.
6847-2013 (O&M) & 30 other appeals
29. In these extenuating circumstances, there exists
significant disparity among the sale exemplars
presently under consideration. Amongst these sale
exemplars, being Ex. P2
highestsale instance values the land at Rupees
1,81,33,867 per acre,
Rupees 16,94,000 per acre. Given this wide range
and in light of the judicial precedents cited above, we
are of the opinion that we should rely upon the
highest sale exemplar, which is Ex. P5, rather than
solely depending upon an average of the multiple
sale deeds produced before us…….”
Considering the aforesaid principle of law which
necessitated taking into account the highest sale exemplar, the sale
instance dated 17.07.2008 (Ex.P1) which has been relied upon by the
respondent State needs to be ignored. A perusal of record shows that
admittedly, the sale instances Exs. P8 to P11 which partially formed
part of the acquired land, the transactions were entered between the
landowners and the private builders. However, no
whatsoever has been led by the respondent State to create any
about the genuineness or bona fide nature of the said sale
transactions. Thus, in the absence of there being any evidence on
record to establish that such sale transactions were g
the landowners for the purpose of drawing any kind of uncalled
benefit towards getting higher market value, the same cannot be
discarded.
2013 (O&M) & 30 other appeals [11]
these extenuating circumstances, there exists
significant disparity among the sale exemplars
presently under consideration. Amongst these sale
exemplars, being Ex. P2-P8 and Ex. P10, the
highestsale instance values the land at Rupees
1,81,33,867 per acre, whereas the lowest values it at
16,94,000 per acre. Given this wide range
and in light of the judicial precedents cited above, we
the opinion that we should rely upon the
highest sale exemplar, which is Ex. P5, rather than
on an average of the multiple
sale deeds produced before us…….”
Considering the aforesaid principle of law which
necessitated taking into account the highest sale exemplar, the sale
instance dated 17.07.2008 (Ex.P1) which has been relied upon by the
respondent State needs to be ignored. A perusal of record shows that
admittedly, the sale instances Exs. P8 to P11 which partially formed
part of the acquired land, the transactions were entered between the
landowners and the private builders. However, no evidence
whatsoever has been led by the respondent State to create any doubt
about the genuineness or bona fide nature of the said sale
transactions. Thus, in the absence of there being any evidence on
record to establish that such sale transactions were got executed by
the landowners for the purpose of drawing any kind of uncalled-
benefit towards getting higher market value, the same cannot be
these extenuating circumstances, there exists
significant disparity among the sale exemplars
presently under consideration. Amongst these sale
P8 and Ex. P10, the
highestsale instance values the land at Rupees
whereas the lowest values it at
16,94,000 per acre. Given this wide range
and in light of the judicial precedents cited above, we
the opinion that we should rely upon the
highest sale exemplar, which is Ex. P5, rather than
on an average of the multiple
Considering the aforesaid principle of law which
necessitated taking into account the highest sale exemplar, the sale
instance dated 17.07.2008 (Ex.P1) which has been relied upon by the
respondent State needs to be ignored. A perusal of record shows that
admittedly, the sale instances Exs. P8 to P11 which partially formed
part of the acquired land, the transactions were entered between the
evidence
doubt
about the genuineness or bona fide nature of the said sale
transactions. Thus, in the absence of there being any evidence on
ot executed by
-for
benefit towards getting higher market value, the same cannot be
RFA-6847
13.
the private developers vide sale transa
was an exponential increase towards sale price from
Rs.2,53,26,032/
09.04.2007, cannot be any ground to ignore such sale instances
especially when there was no evidence available on
that these sale deeds were result of any
developer. In case of compulsory acquisition, the landowners are
entitled to get the benefit of highest of the sale price in the area which
a willing purchaser is ready to part with. In the given facts, once the
multiple sale transactio
landowners and the builders, this itself shows that the land under
acquisition was having great commercial and potential value even
much prior to it’s acquisition.
14.
Exs. P8 to P11 need to be taken into account as the best sale
exemplars
Rs.4.25 crore as on 09.04.2007. In the humble opinion of this Court,
since the land forming part of the sale instances Ex.P8
partially fall within the acquired land and a large chunk of more than
100 kanals of land was sold at an average price of Rs.4.25 crores per
acre forming part of the same revenue estate of Village Narsinghpur,
no cut needs to be applied towards the
6847-2013 (O&M) & 30 other appeals
Furthermore, mere fact that
the private developers vide sale transa
was an exponential increase towards sale price from
Rs.2,53,26,032/- to Rs.4,25,00,000/
09.04.2007, cannot be any ground to ignore such sale instances
especially when there was no evidence available on
that these sale deeds were result of any
developer. In case of compulsory acquisition, the landowners are
entitled to get the benefit of highest of the sale price in the area which
a willing purchaser is ready to part with. In the given facts, once the
multiple sale transactions have been carried out between the
landowners and the builders, this itself shows that the land under
acquisition was having great commercial and potential value even
much prior to it’s acquisition.
In the light of the aforesaid discussion, the sal
Exs. P8 to P11 need to be taken into account as the best sale
exemplars vide which the market value reflected per acre was
Rs.4.25 crore as on 09.04.2007. In the humble opinion of this Court,
since the land forming part of the sale instances Ex.P8
partially fall within the acquired land and a large chunk of more than
100 kanals of land was sold at an average price of Rs.4.25 crores per
acre forming part of the same revenue estate of Village Narsinghpur,
no cut needs to be applied towards the
2013 (O&M) & 30 other appeals [12]
Furthermore, mere fact that the land was purchased by
the private developers vide sale transactions Exs.P8 to P11 and there
was an exponential increase towards sale price from
to Rs.4,25,00,000/- between 12.03.2007 to
09.04.2007, cannot be any ground to ignore such sale instances
especially when there was no evidence available on record to show
that these sale deeds were result of any compulsion on the part of the
developer. In case of compulsory acquisition, the landowners are
entitled to get the benefit of highest of the sale price in the area which
a willing purchaser is ready to part with. In the given facts, once the
ns have been carried out between the
landowners and the builders, this itself shows that the land under
acquisition was having great commercial and potential value even
In the light of the aforesaid discussion, the sale deeds
Exs. P8 to P11 need to be taken into account as the best sale
vide which the market value reflected per acre was
Rs.4.25 crore as on 09.04.2007. In the humble opinion of this Court,
since the land forming part of the sale instances Ex.P8 to P11
partially fall within the acquired land and a large chunk of more than
100 kanals of land was sold at an average price of Rs.4.25 crores per
acre forming part of the same revenue estate of Village Narsinghpur,
no cut needs to be applied towards the size of the land parcels
the land was purchased by
ctions Exs.P8 to P11 and there
was an exponential increase towards sale price from
between 12.03.2007 to
09.04.2007, cannot be any ground to ignore such sale instances
record to show
on the part of the
developer. In case of compulsory acquisition, the landowners are
entitled to get the benefit of highest of the sale price in the area which
a willing purchaser is ready to part with. In the given facts, once the
ns have been carried out between the
landowners and the builders, this itself shows that the land under
acquisition was having great commercial and potential value even
e deeds
Exs. P8 to P11 need to be taken into account as the best sale
vide which the market value reflected per acre was
Rs.4.25 crore as on 09.04.2007. In the humble opinion of this Court,
to P11
partially fall within the acquired land and a large chunk of more than
100 kanals of land was sold at an average price of Rs.4.25 crores per
acre forming part of the same revenue estate of Village Narsinghpur,
size of the land parcels
RFA-6847
forming part of such sale transactions in comparison to the land
under acquisition while determining the market value of the acquired
land.
DISCUSSION REGARDING DEVELOPMENT CUT:
15.
in case of acquisition, the market value is to be re
assessed based on the sale transactions relied upon by the
landowners and some appropriate cut towards development cost
needs to be applied on the sale price of such sale deeds. P
the cut towards development cost is on two counts, firstly, towards
the loss of land incurred by the development authority for providing
civic amenities like roads, parks, green belts and community buildings
etc.; and secondly towards the cost in
infrastructural civic amenities. However, in the given facts, the
acquisition has been carried out for the public purpose, i.e. “for the
development and utilization of land for 90 meters wide southern
periphery road along with 30
from National Highway No.8 upto Sector 72 at Gurugram”. In such
circumstances, the respondent State is practicality neither going to
suffer any kind of loss of land nor incur any expenditure towards
providing of infrast
appropriate in case the market value is assessed while relying upon
6847-2013 (O&M) & 30 other appeals
forming part of such sale transactions in comparison to the land
under acquisition while determining the market value of the acquired
DISCUSSION REGARDING DEVELOPMENT CUT:
Under normal circumstances, depending upon th
in case of acquisition, the market value is to be re
assessed based on the sale transactions relied upon by the
landowners and some appropriate cut towards development cost
needs to be applied on the sale price of such sale deeds. P
the cut towards development cost is on two counts, firstly, towards
the loss of land incurred by the development authority for providing
amenities like roads, parks, green belts and community buildings
etc.; and secondly towards the cost in
infrastructural civic amenities. However, in the given facts, the
acquisition has been carried out for the public purpose, i.e. “for the
development and utilization of land for 90 meters wide southern
periphery road along with 30 meters wide Green belt on both sides
from National Highway No.8 upto Sector 72 at Gurugram”. In such
circumstances, the respondent State is practicality neither going to
suffer any kind of loss of land nor incur any expenditure towards
providing of infrastructural civic amenities and thus, it would be
appropriate in case the market value is assessed while relying upon
2013 (O&M) & 30 other appeals [13]
forming part of such sale transactions in comparison to the land
under acquisition while determining the market value of the acquired
DISCUSSION REGARDING DEVELOPMENT CUT:
Under normal circumstances, depending upon the facts,
in case of acquisition, the market value is to be re-determined/ re
assessed based on the sale transactions relied upon by the
landowners and some appropriate cut towards development cost
needs to be applied on the sale price of such sale deeds. Primarily,
the cut towards development cost is on two counts, firstly, towards
the loss of land incurred by the development authority for providing
amenities like roads, parks, green belts and community buildings
etc.; and secondly towards the cost incurred for providing such
infrastructural civic amenities. However, in the given facts, the
acquisition has been carried out for the public purpose, i.e. “for the
development and utilization of land for 90 meters wide southern
meters wide Green belt on both sides
from National Highway No.8 upto Sector 72 at Gurugram”. In such
circumstances, the respondent State is practicality neither going to
suffer any kind of loss of land nor incur any expenditure towards
ructural civic amenities and thus, it would be
appropriate in case the market value is assessed while relying upon
forming part of such sale transactions in comparison to the land
under acquisition while determining the market value of the acquired
e facts,
determined/ re-
assessed based on the sale transactions relied upon by the
landowners and some appropriate cut towards development cost
rimarily,
the cut towards development cost is on two counts, firstly, towards
the loss of land incurred by the development authority for providing
amenities like roads, parks, green belts and community buildings
curred for providing such
infrastructural civic amenities. However, in the given facts, the
acquisition has been carried out for the public purpose, i.e. “for the
development and utilization of land for 90 meters wide southern
meters wide Green belt on both sides
from National Highway No.8 upto Sector 72 at Gurugram”. In such
circumstances, the respondent State is practicality neither going to
suffer any kind of loss of land nor incur any expenditure towards
ructural civic amenities and thus, it would be
appropriate in case the market value is assessed while relying upon
RFA-6847
the sale price derived from the sale instances Ex.P8 to Ex.P11 @
Rs.4.25 crores per acre after applying cut of 10% towards providing
of any green belt etc. along side the sector roads.
16.
P11 are dated 09.04.2007 and there happens to be a time gap of
around 19 months between the sale exemplars and the date of
notification under Sectio
appreciation @ 12% per annum needs to be granted in favour of the
landowners while considering the fact that the land under acquisition
forms part of the revenue estate of Village Narsinghpur situated
within the
(New Delhi).
notification under Section 4 of the Act in the present case, comes to
Rs.4,25,00,000/
Rs.4,25,00,000 + (80,75,000)
along with all statutory benefits as applicable under the Act.
17.
all the appeals preferred at the instance of appellants
hereby disposed of whereas the appeals filed at the instance of
respondent
18.
unfortunately expired in the appeal(s)/ cross
thereof and the l
6847-2013 (O&M) & 30 other appeals
the sale price derived from the sale instances Ex.P8 to Ex.P11 @
Rs.4.25 crores per acre after applying cut of 10% towards providing
reen belt etc. along side the sector roads.
Considering the fact that all the sale exemplars Ex.P8 to
P11 are dated 09.04.2007 and there happens to be a time gap of
around 19 months between the sale exemplars and the date of
notification under Section 4 of the Act in the present case, as such
appreciation @ 12% per annum needs to be granted in favour of the
landowners while considering the fact that the land under acquisition
forms part of the revenue estate of Village Narsinghpur situated
within the satellite city like Gurugram which abuts the National Capital
(New Delhi). As such the sale price per acre as on the date of
notification under Section 4 of the Act in the present case, comes to
Rs.4,25,00,000/- [+19% (appreciation)
Rs.4,25,00,000 + (80,75,000) – (50,57,500) = Rs.4,55,17,500,000/
along with all statutory benefits as applicable under the Act.
Accordingly, in view of the discussion made herein above,
all the appeals preferred at the instance of appellants
hereby disposed of whereas the appeals filed at the instance of
respondent- State are hereby dismissed.
Further, wherever, the landowner(s) has/have
unfortunately expired in the appeal(s)/ cross
thereof and the legal heirs have not been impleaded, they shall be at
2013 (O&M) & 30 other appeals [14]
the sale price derived from the sale instances Ex.P8 to Ex.P11 @
Rs.4.25 crores per acre after applying cut of 10% towards providing
reen belt etc. along side the sector roads.
Considering the fact that all the sale exemplars Ex.P8 to
P11 are dated 09.04.2007 and there happens to be a time gap of
around 19 months between the sale exemplars and the date of
n 4 of the Act in the present case, as such
appreciation @ 12% per annum needs to be granted in favour of the
landowners while considering the fact that the land under acquisition
forms part of the revenue estate of Village Narsinghpur situated
satellite city like Gurugram which abuts the National Capital
As such the sale price per acre as on the date of
notification under Section 4 of the Act in the present case, comes to
[+19% (appreciation) -10%(development cut)]
(50,57,500) = Rs.4,55,17,500,000/
along with all statutory benefits as applicable under the Act.
Accordingly, in view of the discussion made herein above,
all the appeals preferred at the instance of appellants-landowners are
hereby disposed of whereas the appeals filed at the instance of
State are hereby dismissed.
Further, wherever, the landowner(s) has/have
unfortunately expired in the appeal(s)/ cross-objection(s) after filing
egal heirs have not been impleaded, they shall be at
the sale price derived from the sale instances Ex.P8 to Ex.P11 @
Rs.4.25 crores per acre after applying cut of 10% towards providing
Considering the fact that all the sale exemplars Ex.P8 to
P11 are dated 09.04.2007 and there happens to be a time gap of
around 19 months between the sale exemplars and the date of
n 4 of the Act in the present case, as such
appreciation @ 12% per annum needs to be granted in favour of the
landowners while considering the fact that the land under acquisition
forms part of the revenue estate of Village Narsinghpur situated
satellite city like Gurugram which abuts the National Capital
As such the sale price per acre as on the date of
notification under Section 4 of the Act in the present case, comes to
i.e.
(50,57,500) = Rs.4,55,17,500,000/-
Accordingly, in view of the discussion made herein above,
ndowners are
hereby disposed of whereas the appeals filed at the instance of
Further, wherever, the landowner(s) has/have
objection(s) after filing
egal heirs have not been impleaded, they shall be at
RFA-6847
liberty to seek execution of the present decision by moving
appropriate application(s) before the learned Executing Court.
19.
disposed of.
16.10.2025
sanjay
Sr. No.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
6847-2013 (O&M) & 30 other appeals
liberty to seek execution of the present decision by moving
appropriate application(s) before the learned Executing Court.
Pending misc. application(s), if any, shall also stand
disposed of.
.10.2025
Whether speaking/reasoned?
Whether Reportable?
Sr. No. Case No.
RFA-7088-2013(O&M)
RFA-7089-2013(O&M)
RFA-7090-2013(O&M)
RFA-7091-2013(O&
RFA-7092-2013(O&M)
RFA-7093-2013(O&M)
RFA-7094-2013(O&M)
RFA-7095-2013(O&M)
RFA-7139-2013(O&M)
10. RFA-7140-2013(O&M)
11. RFA-7141-2013(O&M)
12. RFA-7142-2013(O&M)
13. RFA-7143-2013(O&M)
14. RFA-7144-2013(O&M)
15. RFA-7145-2013(O&M)
16. RFA-7146-2013(O&M)
17. RFA-7147-2013(O&M)
18. RFA-7148-2013(O&M)
19. RFA-7149-2013(O&M)
20. RFA-7150-2013(O&M)
21. RFA-7151-2013(O&M)
22. RFA-7152-2013(O&M)
23. RFA-7153-2013(O&M)
24. RFA-595-2014(O&M)
25. RFA-1015-2017(O&M)
26. RFA-5034-2015(O&M)
27. RFA-6570-2015(O&M)
28. RFA-4423-2015(O&M)
2013 (O&M) & 30 other appeals [15]
liberty to seek execution of the present decision by moving
appropriate application(s) before the learned Executing Court.
Pending misc. application(s), if any, shall also stand
(HARKESH MANUJA)
JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned? Yes/No
Yes/No
(O&M)
(O&M)
(O&M)
(O&M)
(O&M)
(O&M)
(O&M)
(O&M)
(O&M)
(O&M)
(O&M)
(O&M)
(O&M)
(O&M)
(O&M)
(O&M)
(O&M)
(O&M)
(O&M)
(O&M)
(O&M)
(O&M)
(O&M)
(O&M)
(O&M)
(O&M)
(O&M)
(O&M)
liberty to seek execution of the present decision by moving
Pending misc. application(s), if any, shall also stand
(HARKESH MANUJA)
RFA-6847
29.
30.
16.10.2025
sanjay
6847-2013 (O&M) & 30 other appeals
29. RFA-3705-2015(O&M)
30. RFA-1950-2017(O&M)
.10.2025
2013 (O&M) & 30 other appeals [16]
(O&M)
(O&M)
(HARKESH MANUJA)
JUDGE
(HARKESH MANUJA)
Legal Notes
Add a Note....