LexM/S ACQUAINTED REALTORS LLP ETC. ETC. versus STATE OF HARYANA & OTHERS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B C D E F G H 374 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 3 S.C.R. M/S ACQUAINTED REALTORS LLP ETC. ETC. v. STATE OF HARYANA & OTHERS (Civil Appeal Nos. 1330-1332 of 2021) APRIL 08, 2021 [UDAY UMESH LALIT AND VINEET SARAN, JJ.] Land Acquisition Act, 1894: Compensation – Land agricultural in nature and away from Highway – In the year 2002, in respect of Phases II, III and IV of the Industrial Model Township, Manesar, Gurgaon, acquisition proceedings under s.4 of the Act were initiated with regard to lands falling in villages Naharpur Kasan, Kasan, Bas Kusla, Bas Haria, Dhana and Manesar – High Court vide its decision dated 09.03.2018 in Madan Pal III v. State of Haryana 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 compensation for lands from village Manesar (covered by Phase IV) was assessed at Rs.62.10 lakhs per acre – Appeals arising therefrom were decided by this Court vide its Judgment dated 11.01.2019 as modified by Order dated 08.02.2019 in Wazir and Another vs. State of Haryana i.e., after the decision of the High Court which is presently under appeal – The decision of the High Court in HSIIDC v. Roshan Lal and others, which was the basis of the decision in the present matters, had in turn relied upon the assessment made by the High Court in its earlier in Madan Pal III – Since the assessment in Madan Pal III was scaled down by this Court in Wazir and Another v. State of Haryana, theoretically, the market value arrived at by the High Court in Roshan Lal case would be on the higher side – The acquisition in Roshan Lal case was a year before the present acquisition – If the lands in both cases were otherwise identical in material terms, the valuation found with respect to the former in the year 2004, must have undergone some upward change when the valuation of the latter set of lands is to be considered for the year 2005 – Although, the decision in Roshan Lal was not challenged by the State, the fact remains that the values assessed in that decision were theoretically on a higher scale and the landholders, on that score, have received an advantage – In totality of circumstances, the landholders must [2021] 3 S.C.R. 374 374 A B C D E F G H 375 be held entitled to 8% flat increase over the market value assessed in HSIIDC v. Roshan Lal and others in respect of lands from villages which were found to be comparable – The landholders must therefore get enhancement to the tune of 8% over Rs.43.61 lakhs per acre – They shall also be entitled to all the statutory benefits. Allowing the appeals, the Court HELD: 1. Wazir and another vs. State of Haryana had considered the value by annual increase as one of the alternatives. Secondly, the rate adopted in that case was only 8%. The valuation in Wazir and another vs. State of Haryana, by itself, cannot therefore be taken as the basis in preference to what could possibly be concluded on the basis of Sale Deeds on record. The submission therefore does not merit acceptance. However, two aspects of the matter are quite striking and distinguish the instant acquisition from the one that was under consideration in HSIIDC vs. Roshan Lal and others. A) The notification for acquiring the lands for Kondli Manesar Palwal Expressway was issued prior in point of time. It is true that according to the record, except for certain exits, the Expressway would otherwise be unapproachable as stated by Assistant Manager, HSIIDC. However, a dimension distinguishing the instant case certainly got added in that, even if there was to be no direct approach to the acquired lands from the Expressway, in terms of potential, the lands in the instant case definitely got closer to development. B) Secondly, the acquisition in the case of HSIIDC vs. Roshan Lal and others was a year before the present acquisition. If the lands in both cases were otherwise identical in material terms, the valuation found with respect to the former in the year 2004, must have undergone some upward change when the valuation of the latter set of lands is to be considered for the year 2005. [Paras 11, 12, 13][388-F-H; 389- A-D] Wazir and Another v. State of Haryana (2019) 13 SCC 101 : [2019] 2 SCR 571 – referred to. 2. The lands in the instant case were agricultural in nature and away from the Highway. At the same time, it cannot be ignored that the values arrived at in HSIIDC vs. Roshan Lal and others (i
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.