Holding

Compensation must be based on the highest bona‑fide comparable pre‑notification sale exemplar (Ex. P5) with suitable deductions, thereby restoring the Reference Court’s award.

Summary

The appellants challenged the compensation awarded for 302.75 acres of land acquired by the State of Haryana under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, arguing that the market value should reflect the land's strategic location and potential. The High Court had restored the lower award given by the Land Acquisition Collector, rejecting the Reference Court's higher valuation based on sale exemplar Ex. P76. The Supreme Court examined the criteria for selecting comparable sale exemplars, emphasizing that only bona‑fide transactions near the Section 4 notification date and within the same village should be considered. It held that the highest reliable pre‑notification sale exemplar, Ex. P5 (₹1,81,33,867 per acre), after appropriate developmental deductions (approximately 46‑50%), provides a fair market value. Applying this methodology, the Court restored the Reference Court’s award, finding the High Court’s reduction erroneous. Consequently, the appeals were allowed, the High Court judgment set aside, and the compensation as determined by the Reference Court ordered to be paid with statutory benefits.

Issues considered

Whether the appellants are entitled to a higher rate of compensation for the acquired land and, if so, to what extent.
How the quantum of compensation should be calculated, including the selection of comparable sale exemplars and the appropriate deductions for developmental charges.

Legislation cited

Haryana Urban Development Authority Act, 1977
Land Acquisition Act, 1894s. 23(1), s. 4, s. 6

Headnote

Issue for Consideration (1) Whether the appellants are entitled to higher compensation for their acquired lands, and if so, to what extent; and (2) Whether the methodology for calculating the quantum of such compensation has been appropriately applied. Headnotes† Land ss.4, 6, 23(1) – Assessment of Market Value for Acquired Lands – Comparable Sales Method – Deduction for Developmental Charges: Held: Compensation for acquired lands must reflect their fair market value as of the date of the Section 4 notification – The

Subjects

Land AcquisitionMarket ValueComparable Sales MethodDevelopment ChargesPotentiality of Land

Judgment

[2024] 10 S.C.R. 1709 : 2024 INSC 797

Horrmal (Deceased) Through His LRs & Ors.
v.
State of Haryana & Ors.
(Civil Appeal No. 11758 of 2024)
21 October 2024
[Surya Kant* and K.V. Viswanathan, JJ.]

Issue for Consideration
(1) Whether the appellants are entitled to higher compensation
for their acquired lands, and if so, to what extent; and
(2) Whether the methodology for calculating the quantum of such
compensation has been appropriately applied.

Headnotes†
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – ss.4, 6, 23(1) – Assessment
of Market Value for Acquired Lands – Comparable Sales
Method – Deduction for Developmental Charges:
Held: Compensation for acquired lands must reflect their fair
market value as of the date of the Section 4 notification – The
"comparable sales method" is the preferred approach, using
bona fide sales exemplars of similar land – The ‘market value’ is
to be assessed with reference to factors such as standing crops
and trees, the severance of part of the land, damage to movable
or immovable property or earnings, the need to relocate one’s
residence or business, and any loss of profits from the land
between the publication of the declaration under Section 6 and
the Collector's assumption of possession – Sale deeds of smaller
parcels can be considered but must undergo appropriate deductions
to account for developmental charges – Deductions may range from
20% to 75%, depending on the nature and location of the land.
[Paras 18, 19, 26, 30]

Compensation – Reliance on Best Sale Exemplars – Judicial
Guidelines for Determination of Fair Value:
Held: When multiple comparable sale exemplars exist, the highest
bona fide exemplar should be preferred, provided it meets legal

* Author
1710 [2024] 10 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

criteria – Even when averaging values, the highest exemplar may
be considered to ensure fair compensation – The Reference Court’s
valuation of ₹92,62,500 per acre aligns with market potential and
statutory requirements, and the High Court erred in reducing it.
[Paras 28, 35, 37]

Principle of Potentiality – Strategic Location of Acquired
Land – Enhancement of Compensation:
Held: The acquired land’s strategic location and potential for non-
agricultural development must be factored into the compensation.
Lands situated near urban areas, major highways, or industrial
zones have higher potential value – Deductions should not
undermine this potentiality. [Paras 32, 33, 36]

Case Law Cited
Mehrawal Khewaji Trust v. State of Punjab [2012] 4 SCR 24 :
(2012) 5 SCC 432; A. Natesam Pillai v. Tahsildar [2010] 10 SCR
1 : (2010) 9 SCC 118; General Manager, Oil and Natural Gas
Corporation Ltd. v. Rameshbhai Jivanbhai Patel [2008] 11 SCR
927 : (2008) 14 SCC 745; Kanwar Singh v. Union of India [1998]
Supp. 2 SCR 505 : (1998) 8 SCC 136; Subh Ram v. State of
Haryana [2009] 15 SCR 287 : (2010) 1 SCC 444; Chimanlal
Hargovinddas v. LAO [1988] Supp. 1 SCR 531 : (1988) 3 SCC
751; Shaji Kuriakose v. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. [2001] Supp. 1
SCR 573 : (2001) 7 SCC 650; Administrator General of West
Bengal v. Collector, Varanasi [1988] 2 SCR 1025 : (1988) 2 SCC
150; Atma Singh v. State of Haryana and Others [2007] 12 SCR
1120 : (2008) 2 SCC 568; Balwan Singh v. State of Haryana and
others, 2022 SCC Online SC 637; Karan Singh v. Union of India
[1997] Supp. 4 SCR 237 : (1997) 8 SCC 186; Rishi Pal Singh
v. Meerut Development Authority [2006] 2 SCR 508 : (2006) 3
SCC 205; Sh. Himmat Singh v. State of M.P., (2013) 16 SCC
392 – relied on.
Dollar Co. v. Collector of Madras, AIR 1975 SC 1670; Special
Land Acquisition Officer v. T. Adinarayan Setty, AIR 1959 SC 429;
Maya Devi v. State of Haryana [2018] 1 SCR 225 : (2018) 2 SCC
474 – referred to.
[2024] 10 S.C.R. 1711

Horrmal (Deceased) Through His LRs & Ors. v.
State of Haryana & Ors.

List of Acts
Land Acquisition Act, 1894; Haryana Urban Development Authority
Act, 1977.

List of Keywords
Land Acquisition; Market Value; Comparable Sales Method;
Development Charges; Potentiality of Land.

Case Arising From
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 11758 of 2024
From the Judgment and Order dated 23.08.2022 of the High Court
of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in RFA No. 13554 of 2018
With
Civil Appeal Nos. 11759-11760, 11761, 11762-11766, 11767-11770,
11771-11772, 11773-11779, 11780-11786, 11787-11796, 11797,
11798, 11799, 11800-11806, 11807, 11808, 11809, 11810, 11811-
11812, 11813,11814, 11815, 11816, 11817, 11818-11819, 11820,
11821, 11822, 11823, 11824, 11825-11828, 11829-11830, 11831-
11832, 11833, 11834, 11835, 11836-11838, 11839-11840, 11841,
11842, 11843, 11844, 11845-11846, 11847-11848, 11849-11850,
11851-11852, 11853-11854, 11855-11856, 11857, 11858, 11859-
11860, 11861-11862, 11863-11869, 11870-11871, 11872, 11873-
11874, 11875-11876, 11877-11878, 11879, 11880-11881, 11882-
11883, 11884-11890, 11891-11894, 11895-11917, 11918-11947,
11948-11951, 11952-11953, 11954-11955, 11956-11959, 11960-
11961, 11962, 11963-11964, 11965-11966, 11967-11968, 11969,
11970-11971, 11972-11973, 11974-11975, 11976-11977, 11978,
11979-11980, 11981-11987, 11988-11989, 11990-11991,11992-
11993, 11994-11995, 11996-11997, 11998-11999 and 12000 of 2024

Appearances for Parties
Narender Hooda, Rameshwar Singh Malik, Gagan Gupta, Sunil
Dalal, Sr. Advs., Tishampati Sen, Ms. Riddhi Sancheti, Anurag
Anand, Mukul Kulhari, Pardeep Dahiya, Ms. Mahima Benipuri,
Deepak Goel, Ms. Harshita Maheshwari, Ms. Urvashi Sharma,
Ms. Alka Goyal, Ms. Archana Preeti Gupta, Jitesh Malik, Gaurav
Pratap Singh, Arjun Singh, Mrs. Leelawati Suman, Satish Kumar,
Ajay Gupta, Ashok Anand, Ms. Manisha Saroha, Nikhil Beniwal,
1712 [2024] 10 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

Navish Bhati, Vikram Singh Dalal, Ms. Rakhi Ray, Deepkaran Dalal,
Raunaq Dalal, Karan Singh Dalal, A. Venayagam Balan, Gaurav
Pal, R.V.Kameshwaran, C. M. Sundaram, Kiritkumar Govindlal
Sheth, Ashray Behura, Deepak Parashar, Prakhar Singh, Dipak
Kumar Jena, Prasanna Kumar Parhi, R.K. Poswal, Ranjita Dhal,
Pradeep Kumar Verma, Parmod Kumar, Sunil Kumar Mund, Raj
Sekhar Jena, Ms. Sandhya Mishra, Siddharth Mittal, Abhijeet
Varshney, Deepak Agarwal, Darshan, Prabhat Kumar, Mrs. Shilpa
G Mittal, Devesh Pratap Singh, N S Dalal, Anshuman Nayak, Rahul
Kulhare, Ms. Rachana Dalal, Krishan Mourya, Abhishek Kumar,
Ms. Sweta Kadyan, Sharad Mrinal, Tanishq Tyagi, Ms. Ankita
Pandey, Sanjay Tyagi, Ms. Disha Singh, S.K. Pabbi, Shivendu
Gaur, Ms. Nidhi Sharma, Ms. Nisha Sharma, Ajay Kumar Singh,
Somvir Singh Deswal, Manoj Kumar, Neeraj Singh, Diwan Singh
Chauhan, Ms. Amit Kumari Saroha, Nischal Kumar Neeraj, Davesh
Bhatia, Ms. Chaya, Rakesh Dahiya, Aditya Dahiya, Akaash Dahiya,
Aditya Singh, Gagan Gupta, Ananta Prasad Mishra, Saurabh Gupta,
Advs. for the Appellants.
Vikramjit Banerjee, A.S.G., Samar Vijay Singh, Keshav Mittal, Ms.
Sabarni Som, Fateh Singh, R.K. Singh, Rajeev Kumar Gupta,
Parminder Singh Bhullar, Advs. for the Respondents.

Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court

Judgment

Surya Kant, J.

Delay condoned.
Leave granted.
2. These appeals are preferred by the expropriated landowners
(hereinafter ‘Appellants’), impugning the judgement dated
23.08.2022 passed by the Punjab and Haryana High Court at
Chandigarh (hereinafter, ‘High Court’), whereby their appeals
seeking further enhancement in compensation for their acquired
lands, have been dismissed. As a necessary corollary, the High
Court has allowed the cross appeals filed by the Respondent
State, challenging the enhancement in compensation made by
the Reference Court. Consequently, the Awards passed by the
[2024] 10 S.C.R. 1713

Horrmal (Deceased) Through His LRs & Ors. v.
State of Haryana & Ors.

Reference Court have been set aside and the compensation as
was granted by the Land Acquisition Collector (hereinafter, ‘LAC’)
has been restored.

A. Facts
3. The instant dispute regarding the grant of just and fair compensation
originated with the issuance of a notification under Section 4 of the
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter, ‘1894 Act’) on 11.02.2011,
for the acquisition of approximately 302.75 acres of land by the
Respondent State. This land, including the Appellants’ lands, is
situated in the revenue estate of Tauru village in Mewat District.
The acquisition process was initiated for the development and
utilisation of land for public purposes, specifically for carving out
Residential and Utility Areas in Sectors 7, 8 and 11 in Mewat
District under the Haryana Urban Development Authority Act,
1977. A notification under Section 6 of the 1894 Act was thereafter
issued on 10.02.2012.
4. The LAC passed the award on 22.10.2013 in respect of the land
admeasuring 302.75 acres and estimated the compensation at
Rupees 45,00,000/- per acre, along with 30% solatium and an
additional amount of 12% per annum for the acquired land. Further,
compensation for the lands abutting the Mohammadpur—Sohna—
Tauru bypass road were enhanced by 20% and 25%, respectively,
over the already fixed rate. The LAC assessed the compensation
primarily based on the rates fixed by the Divisional Level Rate
Fixation Committee in the following manner: (a) 2057 Kanal at
Rupees 45,00,000/- per acre; (b) 113 Kanals and 9 Marlas at
Rupees 54,00,000/- per acre; and (c) 251 Kanals and 11 Marlas at
Rupees 56,25,000/- per acre. In addition to this, the LAC also affixed
compensation for building structures and trees wherever subsisting
on the acquired lands.
5. Aggrieved by the award dated 22.10.2013, the Appellants filed
Reference(s) under Section 18 of the 1894 Act before the Additional
District Judge, Mewat (hereinafter, ‘Reference Court’). The
Reference Court, vide separate awards, enhanced the market value
of the acquired land to Rupees 92,62,500/- per acre, in addition
to granting other statutory benefits. The Reference Court, in this
1714 [2024] 10 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

instance, relied upon a sale exemplar, Ex. P76, to assess the
market value of the acquired land as on the date of the issuance of
Section 4 notification, and subsequently increased the compensation
amount. Both the Appellants and the Respondent, being dissatisfied
with the decision of the Reference Court, preferred appeals before
the High Court.
6. In this vein, the High Court allowed the appeals preferred by the
Respondent State while dismissing those filed by the Appellants.
The High Court held that the Reference Court had incorrectly
estimated the market value and enhanced the compensation as it
ignored various sale instances of comparable parcels of land that
had been produced by the Respondents. Additionally, the High
Court also doubted the reliability of Ex. P76, which was the basis
of the Reference Court’s decision, on the ground that this sale deed
belonged to a commercial plot of land and was post the notification
issued under Section 4 of the 1894 Act. Accordingly, the High Court
set aside the award(s) of the Reference Court and reverted the
compensation amount to that initially granted by the LAC. Hence,
these appeals.

B. Contentions of the parties
7. We have heard Learned Senior Counsel for the parties at a
considerable length and meticulously perused the documents
submitted on record.
8. S/Shri Narender Hooda, Sunil Dalal and Gagan Gupta, Learned Senior
Counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellants, first demonstrated
the potentiality of the acquired land. They contended that the High
Court had overlooked the fact that the acquired lands fell squarely
within the municipal limits of Tauru city and were surrounded by
civic amenities such as a Bus Stand, Hospital, School, College, a
Power Station and Industrial as well as Residential establishments.
They further asserted that the acquired land was located on the
Sohna-Tauru bypass and was in close proximity to the Gurgaon-
National Capital Region, as also the Industrial Township established
at Bhiwadi, Rajasthan. Additionally, the land is situated between the
Sohna—Rewari metal road on one side and the KMP Highway on
the other. This strategic location, they argued, indicated that the
[2024] 10 S.C.R. 1715

Horrmal (Deceased) Through His LRs & Ors. v.
State of Haryana & Ors.

market value of the acquired land, having immense potential at the
time of acquisition, could not have been valued at less than Rupees
5,00,00,000/- per acre.
9. It was contended that the sale exemplars, particularly Ex. RW1/D and
RW1/F, which have been relied upon by the LAC and the High Court
while assessing the rate of compensation at Rupees 45,00,000/- per
acre, appertained to the smaller pieces of land and were inferior in
nature, as the sale consideration mentioned therein was lower than
the rate estimated by the LAC itself. Instead, they urged that Ex. P76
and Ex. P3 ought to have been relied upon, owing to their similarity
and proximity to the acquired land, as well as their temporal proximity
to the date of issuance of the Section 4 notification. They further
emphasised that these sale exemplars are the best sale instances
to be considered since Ex. P76 was registered only a few months
after the Section 4 notification, whereas Ex. P3 was executed prior
to the said notification.
10. Given what had been adduced, Learned Senior Counsels relied on
a plethora of decisions in support of their arguments, including the
judgment of this Court in Dollar Co. v. Collector of Madras,1 wherein
it was held that a sale deed of a recent date could be considered
the best evidence. Additionally, they placed reliance on the decision
in Special Land Acquisition Officer and another v. M.K. Rafiq
Saheb,2 where this Court held that sale deeds pertaining to smaller
areas could be taken into consideration by applying a cut.
11. Conversely, Mr. Vikramjit Bannerjee, learned Additional Solicitor
General of India, representing the Respondents, contended that
the sale deeds produced by the Appellants could not be relied upon
as they pertained to sale instances of tiny plots of land constituting
only a few Marlas. More specifically, he argued that Ex. P3 was not
reliable since it measured only 1 Kanal and 10.5 Marlas, making it
significantly smaller in comparison to the acquired land. Similarly,
with respect to Ex. P76, which was also heavily relied upon by
the Appellants, he asserted that it ought to be discarded, not only

1 [1975] Supp. 1 SCR 403 : AIR 1975 SC 1670
2 [2011] 8 SCR 1088 : (2011) 7 SCC 714
1716 [2024] 10 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

because it was subsequent to the Section 4 notification but also
since the land therein was purchased for a commercial purpose by
a private company for warehousing, and thus would not accurately
reflect the market value of the acquired land.
12. Instead, Mr. Bannerjee urged that the sale instances placed on
record by the Respondents should be relied upon despite having
been recorded post the Section 4 notification, as they lend proper
guidance for estimating the market value of the acquired land on
the crucial date of 11.02.2021. Lastly, he asserted that even if the
Court were to consider the sale instance of a smaller parcel of land,
only those sale exemplars where the land has been used towards
developmental purposes should be relied upon, and after applying
the appropriate deduction towards development charges.

C. Issues
13. Having considered the factual background out of which the dispute
has arisen and the contentions put forth, the questions that fall for
our deliberation are set out as follows:
i. Whether the Appellants are entitled to higher rate of compensation
and if so, to what extent; and
ii. How should the quantum of such compensation be calculated?

D. Analysis
14. As already elucidated in the facts of this case, there has been a
significant difference in the evaluations conducted by the Reference
Court and, subsequently, the High Court. The High Court has reduced
the valuation affixed by the Reference Court by half and, instead,
restored the compensation amount granted by the LAC. Given the
differences in the approaches adopted by these courts and the
variation in outcomes faced by the Appellants, it becomes imperative
for us to assess the evidence placed on record by both parties and
determine whether sufficient grounds subsist for us to enhance the
compensation so awarded.
15. In this regard, it would be appropriate to refer to the table prepared
by the High Court, which, in its decision, has aptly summarised the
different evidence produced by the parties as follows:
[2024] 10 S.C.R. 1717

Horrmal (Deceased) Through His LRs & Ors. v.
State of Haryana & Ors.

Sr. Ex. No Vasika Dated Sale Area of Rate Per Village
No. No. Consideration Land Sold acre
(In Rs.) (K.M.S)
Sale Deeds Produced by the respective parties in the Award dated:
06.01.2017,01.03.2017, 19.07.2017, 20.07.2017, 03.10.2017, 01.08.2017
Sale Deeds Produced by the Landowners
1. P2 1539 2.2.2010 1,75,000 50 Sq. 1,69,40,000 Tauru
Yds.
2. P3 960 27.8.2010 32,27,000 922 Sq. 1,69,40,000 Tauru
Yds.
3. P4 387 31.5.2010 3,36,000 96 Sq. 1,69,40,000 Tauru
Yds.
4. P5 1725 17.12.2010 2,81,000 75 Sq. 1,81,33,867 Tauru
Yds.
5. P6 1707 9.3.2010 2,62,500 75 Sq. 1,69,40,000 Tauru
Yds
6. P7 2076 24.1.2011 5,25,000 150 Sq. 1,69,40,000 Tauru
Yds.
7. P8 2187 7.2.2011 3,50,000 100 Sq. 1,69,40,000 Tauru
Yds.
8. P9 4633 18.1.2012 7,50,000 140 Sq. 2,59,28,571 Tauru
Yds.
9. P10 2186 7.2.2011 2,10,000 30 Sq. 16,94,000 Tauru
Yds.
10 P76 1220 4.7.2011 10,18,87,500 66k (1320 1,23,50,000 Tauru
M)
Sale Deeds Produced by the State

11 RW1/C 2481 29.8.2011 3,25,000 12.5 M 41,60,000 Tauru
12 RW1/D 1220 21.06.2012 60,00,000 1 Acre 4 K 40,00,000 Tauru
(240 M)
13 RW1/E 1802 6.8.2012 17,25,000 3K-9M 40,00,000 Tauru
(69M)
14 RW1/F 3798 25.11.2011 60,00,000 1 Acre 4k 40,00,000 Tauru
(240 M)
15 RW1/G 1779 3.8.2012 18,25,000 3K-13M 40,00,000 Tauru
(73 M)
1718 [2024] 10 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

16 RW1/H 4339 13.03.2013 8,32,500 225 Sq. 1,79,08,000 Tauru
Yds.
17 R8 1724 17.12.10 2,00,000 10 M 32,00,000 Gvarka
18 R9 1591 01.12.10 4,80,000 17 M 45,17,648 Gvarka
19 R10 1304 20.10.2010 10,23,750 4K-11M 18,00,000 Gvarka
(91M)
20 R11 1396 3.11.2010 1,05,000 5M 33,60,000 Gvarka
21 R12 2116 31.1.2011 2,31,000 330 Sq. 33,88,000 Gvarka
Yds.
22 R13 1851 29.12.2010 1,05,000 5M 33,60,000 Gvarka
23. R14 2124 1.2.2011 53,000 2.5M 33,92,000 Gvarka
24. R15 2243 14.2.2011 1,63,350 9M 29,04,000 Gvarka
25 R16 1404 8.11.2010 75000 6M 20,00,000 Gvarka
26 R18 2211 9.2.2011 36,300 2M 29,04,000 Gvarka

16. Upon further examination of the details of this table, it seems to
us that these exemplars can be classified in the following manner:
(a) sale instances executed prior to the issuance of Section 4
notification; and (b) sales instances executed after the issuance
of the Section 4 notification. Thereupon, we have taken the liberty
of further representing this recalibrated categorisation in a tabular
form as follows:

Pre-Section 4 Post Section-4
notification notification
Appellants P2-P8, P10 P9 and P76
Respondents R8-14, R16, R18 R15, RW1/C-H
17. Having distinguished between the two sets of sale instances executed
before and after the issuance of the Section 4 notification, we would
now proceed to determine whether the Appellants are entitled to
compensation at a rate higher than the one determined by the High
Court.
18. The process of assessing or affixing compensation is not tethered
to precision but is rather aimed at a nuanced estimation of pertinent
factors. This task is governed by Section 23(1) of the Land Acquisition
Act of 1894, which mandates that, in determining compensation for
[2024] 10 S.C.R. 1719

Horrmal (Deceased) Through His LRs & Ors. v.
State of Haryana & Ors.

acquired land, the Court must consider the ‘market value’ of the land
as of the ‘date of publication of the notification under Section 4’. The
‘market value’ is to be assessed with reference to factors such as
standing crops and trees, the severance of part of the land, damage
to movable or immovable property or earnings, the need to relocate
one’s residence or business, and any loss of profits from the land
between the publication of the declaration under Section 6 and the
Collector’s assumption of possession.
19. This Court has through various judicial precedents, including a
three-judge bench decision in Special Land Acquisition Officer v.
T. Adinarayan Setty,3 held that the ‘market value’ connotes the
price that a willing buyer would pay to a willing seller, taking into
account the land’s current conditions and its advantages and
potentialities. For this, typically, the best approach is the comparable
sales method, under which the bona fide sale exemplars of similar
lands are relied upon to ascertain the market value of the land
under acquisition. However, to ensure that the valuation is just
and proper, this Court has explained that such sale exemplars
must satisfy certain criteria, including that: (a) the sale must be a
genuine transaction; (b) the sale deed must have been executed
around the time of the Section 4 notification; (c) the land must
be situated near the acquired land; (d) the nature of the land
covered in the sale instance must be similar to the acquired land;
and (e) the size of the plot covered by the sale instance should
be comparable to the land acquired.4
20. Apart from satisfying these factors, it is also imperative that the sale
exemplars reflect the price of the land on the ‘date of publication of
the notification under Section 4’. On account of this express condition,
there are numerous instances where this Court has laid down that
the sale exemplars executed after the Section 4 notification should
not ordinarily be relied upon.5 This is grounded in the reasoning that
once the acquisition process begins, it can impact the valuation of
the land, rendering subsequent sale exemplars to be potentially
inaccurate reflections of the true valuation of the acquired land. This

3 [1959] Supp. 1 SCR 404 : AIR 1959 SC 429
4 Shaji Kuriakose v. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. (2001) 7 SCC 650.
5 General Manager, Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. v. Rameshbhai Jivanbhai Patel, 2008 (14)
SCC 745; Maya Devi v. State of Haryana (2018) 2 SCC 474.
1720 [2024] 10 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

principle was cogently addressed by this Court in A. Natesam Pillai
v. Tahsildar,6 which held that the commencement of acquisition often
leads to an increase in the market values of adjacent lands, thereby
discrediting post-notification transactions as reliable indicators of the
acquired land’s value.
21. Having been equipped with the factors to be considered while
selecting a comparable sale instance to draw an estimate from, it
is perhaps suitable to tackle the core issue and ascertain which of
the sale exemplars produced before us may be most appropriate to
be utilised in this exercise.
22. In the case at hand, the High Court and the Reference Court have
disagreed on what sale exemplars could be used to determine fair
compensation. While the Reference Court relied on Ex P76, the
High Court has rejected the same because it was executed after
the issuance of the Section 4 notification. Nevertheless, the High
Court has fallen prey to the same error and has relied upon the
Respondents’ sale exemplars, which were also executed after the
acquisition had already begun.
23. As discussed above, post-notification sales can only be considered
when better evidence is not available on record and when the party
relying on it can convincingly demonstrate that there has been no
upward trend in market prices due to the acquisition.7 Consequently,
in light of this analysis, the sale deeds numbered P9, P76, R15 and
RW1/C-H, which were executed after the date of the issuance of the
Section 4 notification, will invariably have to be excluded from any
further consideration, save and except for exceptional and compelling
circumstances.
24. Apart from these sale deeds that were not proximate temporally,
we also deem it appropriate to exclude the sale deeds that are not
comparable geographically. It is now a firmly entrenched principle of
law that, in the ordinary course, sale exemplars of lands located in
the surrounding villages should generally not be relied upon, as land
valuation may vary significantly by locality. In the landmark decision of

6 [2010] 10 SCR 1 : (2010) 9 SCC 118
7 Karan Singh v. Union of India (1997) 8 SCC 186; Rishi Pal Singh v. Meerut Development Authority (2006)
3 SCC 205
[2024] 10 S.C.R. 1721

Horrmal (Deceased) Through His LRs & Ors. v.
State of Haryana & Ors.

Kanwar Singh v. Union of India,8 this Court held that sale exemplars
of lands situated in an adjacent village cannot be used to determine
the market value of the acquired land since such lands may differ in
terms of quality and other attributes. On this ground, the sale deeds
enumerated Ex. R8 to Ex. R16 and Ex. R18 shall also have to be
excluded from consideration, as they pertain to a different village,
namely Gwarka, whereas the acquired land is situated in village Tauru.
25. In light of the exclusions made thus far, we are presently left with
sale deeds numbered Ex. P2 to Ex. P8 and Ex. P10. In this context,
the Respondents have sought to argue that considering the total
area of the land in these sale deeds being very small in size, they
are also liable to be discarded. True it is, that such sale deeds
ought not to directly form the basis for determining the rate at which
compensation is to be awarded. Indeed, a thorough review of relevant
precedents in this backdrop does reveal that smaller parcels of
land conventionally command higher prices. Relying on such sale
exemplars also, especially when only single solitary such instances
are presented, may thus not be appropriate.9
26. However, there is no bar in law against considering sale exemplars of
smaller plots, provided they are subjected to adequate developmental
charges. The rationale behind applying such cuts lies in the
fact that smaller plots often command higher prices due to their
developed nature, whereas a larger tract of land which is acquired
for development may require significant allocation for creating roads,
parks, essential services, etc.10 Accordingly, these sale exemplars
can be relied upon only after applying appropriate cuts. This Court in
Chimanlal Hargovinddas v. LAO,11 authoritatively ruled that when
valuing a large block of land, appropriate deduction must be made
for setting aside areas for roads, open spaces and dividing the land
into smaller plots suitable for the construction of buildings.
27. In the instant case, there are multiple sale deeds of smaller plots,
and these represent the best available evidence for estimating
compensation. Since there is no legal impediment to considering such

8 [1998] Supp. 2 SCR 505 : (1998) 8 SCC 136
9 Administrator General of West Bengal v. Collector, Varanasi (1988) 2 SCC 150
10 Ibid; Atma Singh v. State of Haryana and Others (2008) 2 SCC 568
11 [1988] Supp. 1 SCR 531 : (1988) 3 SCC 751
1722 [2024] 10 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

sale deeds, the logical progression in the compensation estimation
process would be to identify the most suitable sale deed(s) for
determining the market value and subsequently, to apply adequate
deductions on the same. The solution to this state of flux may thus be
found in the case of Mehrawal Khewaji Trust v. State of Punjab,12
where this Court laid down as follows:
“....It is clear that when there are several exemplars with
reference to similar lands, it is the general 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 a person,
he is entitled to the highest value which similar land
in the locality is shown to have fetched in a bona fide
transaction entered into between a willing purchaser and
a willing seller near about the time of the acquisition.”
[Emphasis supplied]
28. This view has been reiterated in Sh. Himmat Singh v. State of
M.P.,13 where a three-judge bench of this Court consolidated various
precedents to affirm that in circumstances where there are multiple
sale deeds available for consideration, the Court shall rely on the
highest valued exemplars unless the prices fall within a narrow
range, in which case calculating an average of the values therein
may be more congruous.
29. In 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 highest sale
instance values the land at Rupees 1,81,33,867 per acre, whereas
the lowest values it at 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. Despite the Respondents’
vehement contention that Ex. P5 should not be relied upon owing to
it being a significantly smaller parcel of land—the detailed analysis

12 [2012] 4 SCR 24 : (2012) 5 SCC 432
13 (2013) 16 SCC 392
[2024] 10 S.C.R. 1723

Horrmal (Deceased) Through His LRs & Ors. v.
State of Haryana & Ors.

conducted above indicates no reason why Ex. P5 cannot be utilised
to determine the amount of compensation to be awarded to the
Appellants for the acquired land.
30. Thus, having established the sale exemplar being relied upon and
consequentially the base price to be Rupees 1,81,33,867 per acre, we
now proceed to the aspect of deductions to be applied to the amount
so determined. In this regard, there is no hard and fast rule on the
amount of deduction to be applied towards development charges.
Instead, such deductions may, for the purpose of making a small
area of land comparable to larger tracts, range from a minimum of
20% to a maximum of 75%.14
31. Since the degree of application of cuts is essentially a question
of fact dependent on the unique circumstances of each case, the
particulars to be reckoned with in determining the extent of such
deduction often include a myriad of factors, such as the relative
difference in the size of the land in the sale exemplar vis a vis the
acquired land, proximity to a road, nearness to developed areas,
etc.15 Additionally, several decisions have also taken into account
the nature of the lands because of the stark difference that may
exist between the valuation of an agricultural or undeveloped land
and the sale price of a small developed plot in a private layout.16
32. Circling back to the facts of the present case, it is evident that the
land in Ex. P5 is similar in nature to the acquired land, both being
agricultural land. Its proximity to the acquired land and the fact
that it is situated in the same village of Tauru, are relevant when
determining the extent of deductions to be applied in calculating the
compensation to be granted to the Appellants. Additionally, what is
also of utmost importance is that the value of the land is corroborated
by surrounding circumstances, which point towards its potentiality.
Although Ex. P76 cannot be relied upon since it was executed after
the Section 4 notification, it nonetheless reflects the land’s potential
for being used other than for agricultural purposes. Moreover, the
acquired land’s strategic location near the Bus Stand, Grain Market

14 Balwan Singh v. State of Haryana and others, 2022 SCC Online SC 637; Chandrashekar v. LAO (2012)
1 SCC 390
15 Subh Ram v. State of Haryana (2010) 1 SCC 444
16 Ibid.
1724 [2024] 10 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

and Main Bazaar, besides being located near Palwal-Sohna-Rewari
State Highway, as well as its proximity to the Industrial Township
at Bhiwadi, and nearby schools and colleges, further supports the
assertion that the land possesses immense potentiality.
33. On the face of these distinctive factors lies the challenge of ascertaining
the appropriate extent of deduction to be made. As already established,
judicial precedents dictate that the amount of deduction to be applied
towards developmental charges can range from anywhere between
20% to 75%. On the one hand, we must acknowledge and recognise
the stark disparity between the size of the land covered by the sale
exemplar and the acquired land. On the other hand, it is incumbent
that we take note of the various advantageous factors associated with
the acquired land at the time of issuance of the Section 4 notification.
A balanced approach in adjudicating this particular issue is therefore
necessary. Considering these militating aspects, we cannot justify
applying deduction at either extreme end of the spectrum. A prudent
course of action might be to steer a middle path, aiming for a range
approximately between 46% to 50%.
34. Having said that, even if we were to apply the higher end of deductions
from this middle course, at 50%, the compensation to be granted to
the Appellants would still surpass the amount initially determined by
the LAC and would in fact, be closer in range to the rate granted by
the Reference Court.
35. Alternatively, and only to bolster our above arrived conclusion, even
if the principle of averaging were applied, the most suitable sale
instances for this purpose, as discussed earlier, would be Ex. P2 to
Ex. P8 and Ex. P10, which are noted to be in close proximity to the
acquired land. Upon evaluation, the average price of these lands is
Rupees 1,49,71,733 per acre, which exceeds the sale consideration
shown in most comparable sale examples. This leaves no room for
doubt that the compensation awarded by the Reference Court, at
the rate of Rupees 92,62,500 per acre, was neither excessive nor
beyond the fair and just value of the acquired land.
36. However, considering the totality of the circumstances and recognizing
that the subject land has not been acquired for profiteering or
commercial purposes, but primarily for the development of a
residential area, we find it appropriate to rely on the valuation
[2024] 10 S.C.R. 1725

Horrmal (Deceased) Through His LRs & Ors. v.
State of Haryana & Ors.

reflected in the best exemplar, Ex. P/5, as a fair and reasonable
basis for compensation.
37. Thus, upon careful consideration, we are of the considered opinion
that the High Court erred in reducing the valuation of the land
and affirming the figures granted by the LAC. As demonstrated by
our analysis above, the evaluation conducted by the Reference
Court was nearly accurate and aligned with the evidence of the
sale deeds and potentiality, despite the fact that the sale exemplar
Ex. P76, on which it relied upon, may not have been ideal, given
the circumstances and its commercial nature.

E. Conclusion
38. For the reasons stated above, these appeals are allowed, the
impugned leading judgment dated 23.08.2022 of the High Court,
as well as all other judgments following the said leading judgment
which are under challenge in this batch of appeals, are hereby set
aside, and the compensation amount granted by the Reference
Court is hereby restored.
39. The compensation amount, if already not paid, wholly or partly, as
per the award of the Reference Court, shall be paid to the Appellants
and other land-owners along with all the statutory benefits including
interest, within eight weeks.
40. All the matters stand disposed of in the aforementioned terms.

Result of the case: Appeals allowed.

†
Headnotes prepared by: Harshit Anand, Hony. Associate Editor
(Verified by: Kanu Agrawal, Adv.)