Holding

The Supreme Court held that the compensation for the appellants' lands shall be based on the BESCO award of Rs.1,49,14,975 per acre, reduced by appropriate de‑escalation and a Rs.5 lakh per acre deduction for change‑of‑use, resulting in Rs.1,18,37,668 per acre, and that no interest is payable.

Summary

The appellants, landowners in Dharuhera village, Haryana, challenged the compensation awarded for their lands acquired under a 2008 notification of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, arguing that it should be enhanced to match the higher compensation granted for adjoining villages (Malpura and Kapriwas) acquired under a later 2010 notification and enhanced in the BESCO and Habitat judgments. The High Court upheld the reference court's award of Rs.55,71,010 per acre, rejecting the appellants' reliance on multiple sale exemplars, while the Supreme Court examined whether the BESCO award could be used as a base value, applying the principle of de‑escalation and adjusting for change‑of‑use charges. The Court held that the BESCO award (Rs.1,49,14,975 per acre) is a proper benchmark, but must be reduced by a 12% per annum de‑escalation for 1 year and 6% for the remaining five months, and further reduced by Rs.5 lakh per acre for change‑of‑use, resulting in a compensation of Rs.1,18,37,668 per acre. The Court also ruled that no interest is payable for the delay in filing appeals. Consequently, the appeals were partly allowed and the appellants are entitled to the revised compensation with statutory benefits.

Issues considered

Whether compensation for lands acquired under the 2008 notification can be enhanced to the level awarded for adjoining villages acquired under the 2010 notification.
Whether the principle of de‑escalation should be applied to adjust the base value derived from the BESCO award.
Whether prior awards (BESCO and Habitat) can be relied upon as evidence for determining the base market value.
Whether the potentiality of the land and change‑of‑use charges affect the quantum of compensation.
Whether interest is payable for the period of delay in filing or refiling appeals.

Legislation cited

Haryana Urban Development Authority Act, 1977
Land Acquisition Act, 1894s. 18, s. 23(1-A), s. 23(2), s. 28, s. 4, s. 6
Punjab Scheduled Roads and Controlled Areas Restriction of Unregulated Development Act, 1963

Headnote

Issue for Consideration Whether the Appellants, landowners of Village Dharuhera, Haryana, whose lands were acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, by a notification dated 12.12.2008 are entitled to compensation at a higher rate—on par with the compensation awarded lands in adjoining villages, acquired under a later notification dated 13.05.2010, where the compensation was enhanced vide judgments in BESCO and M/s Habitat Estates. Headnotes† Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (LA Act) – Land acquired for development and utilization of institutional

Subjects

Land AcquisitionDe‑escalationCompensation EnhancementPotentiality factorBase valueChange of land useInterest on delay

Judgment

[2025] 4 S.C.R. 2563 : 2025 INSC 441

Ram Kishan (Since Deceased) Through His Lrs Etc.
v.
State of Haryana & Ors.
(Civil Appeal No(s). 4772-4773 of 2025)
03 April 2025
[B.R. Gavai and K.V. Viswanathan,* JJ.]

Issue for Consideration
Whether the Appellants, landowners of Village Dharuhera, Haryana,
whose lands were acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894,
by a notification dated 12.12.2008 are entitled to compensation at
a higher rate—on par with the compensation awarded for similarly
situated lands in adjoining villages, acquired under a later notification
dated 13.05.2010, where the compensation was enhanced vide
judgments in BESCO and M/s Habitat Estates.

Headnotes†
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (LA Act) – Land acquired for
development and utilization of institutional sector in Dharuhera
village, Haryana – Market value determined by Land Acquisition
Collector (LAC) challenged – Reference Court enhanced the
compensation – High Court vide impugned judgment, for
reasons different from those recorded by Reference Court,
maintained award as ordered by Reference Court – Impugned
judgment set aside – Reasoning given by High Court to rely
only on one exemplar not satisfactory – Lands acquired in
adjoining villages are comparable – Compensation enhanced –
Principle of de-escalation applied – Appeals partly allowed.

Appellants’ land acquired for development and utilization of
Institutional Sector 5A under the Haryana Urban Development
Authority Act, 1977 in Dharuhera village in Haryana – Section 4,
LA Act, notification issued on 12.12.2008 – Section 6, LA Act,
declaration issued on 11.12.2009 – LAC determined market
value at Rs. 21,00,000/- per acre – Appellants filed reference
for appropriate enhancement under LA Act, Section 18 –
Reference Court enhanced the compensation, relying on award
in acquisition vide notification dated 13.05.2010 in adjoining
village of Malpura for development of industrial sectors 15,
16 and 17 of Dharuhera – Considering the difference of 17
* Author
2564 [2025] 4 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

months in date of two notifications, Reference Court applied de-
escalation of 12% and awarded compensation of Rs. 55,71,010/-
per acre – High Court in impugned judgment found that
Reference Court erred in placing reliance on the award in
Malpura village as no evidence to prove that the acquired
land in village Malpura vide notification dated 13.05.2010 was
comparable in its geographical location, valuation and other
factors – Reference Court also faulted for not considering
sale deeds produced by parties which reflected a price lesser
than the amount offered by the LAC – High Court relied on
one exemplar Exh. PW4/D dated 02.05.2006 and rejected the
other sale deeds – Confirmed judgment of Reference Court
for reasons different from the one adduced by the Reference
Court – Aggrieved landowners filed Appeals:
Held: Lands of villages Malpura and Kapriwas acquired under the
notification of 18.05.2010 and lands of Appellants herein acquired by
notification of 12.12.2008 – Purpose of acquisition in both matters
development and utilization for sectors in Dharuhera (institutional
and industrial respectively) – Villages are adjoining – Acquired lands
under notifications of 12.12.2008 and 13.05.2010 on two sides of the
NH-8 Jaipur-Delhi Highway – Vast difference in prices in exemplar of
sale deeds relied upon by the Appellants and the State – High Court
rejected all, except Exh. PW4/D – Reasoning given by High Court
to only rely on PW4/D not satisfactory – Reasoning given by High
Court that no evidence to prove that the acquired lands in village
Malpura was comparable with the then geographical location, and
other factors of the Appellants’ lands bereft of merit – Map indicates
the proximity of the lands – Reference Court rightly recorded that
villages were adjoining and the acquisition was all part of development
of sectors in Dharuhera – Reliance to be placed on the value of the
land arrived at in BESCO wherein compensation awarded with respect
to lands acquired in village Malpura vide notification dated 13.05.2010
and village Kapriwas was enhanced – Rs. 1,49,14,975 per acre to
be treated as base value for the Appellants’ lands – Appropriate
percentage of de-escalation and appropriate reduction for change
of land use charges to be provided for – De-escalation @ 12% p.a.
for one year and for remaining five months an additional 6% on the
base value – Adjusting for change of land use charges by deducting
Rs. 5 lakh – Figure of Rs. 1,18,37,668/- as the base value arrived at
on which statutory benefits under Section 23(1-A), 23(2) and 28, LA
Act in accordance with law to be paid after deducting the amounts
already paid to the landowners.
[2025] 4 S.C.R. 2565

Ram Kishan (Since Deceased) Through His Lrs Etc. v.
State of Haryana & Ors.

Eleven appeals pertain to acquisition pursuant to notification
dated 13.05.2010 under Section 4, LA Act, and notification dated
12.05.2011 under Section 6, LA Act – Lands in village Malpura
and Kapriwas – Same directly covered by judgments in BESCO
and M/s Habitat Estates – Land losers entitled to same benefits –
However, not entitled to interest for the period of delay in filing/
delay in refiling after delayed filing of the appeal(s).

Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Principle of de-escalation and
escalation applied to fix compensation:
Held: Principle of de-escalation to be applied while determining base
value of award – Peerappa Hanmantha Harijan, Chandrashekar
and Sardar Singh referred to.

Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Determination of compensation in
each case depends upon the nature of land and the evidence
adduced in each case – Compensation cannot be determined
by blindly following the previous award/judgment:
Held: Reliance placed on Manoj Kumar in which it was held that
the determination of compensation in each case depends upon the
nature of land and what is the evidence adduced in each case, may
be that better evidence has been adduced in later case regarding the
actual value of property and subsequent sale deeds after the award
and before preliminary notification under Section 4 are also to be
considered, if filed – Not proper to ignore the evidence adduced in
the case at hand – Compensation cannot be determined by blindly
following the previous award/judgment – Manoj Kumar did not hold
that awards in other cases which are relevant cannot be relied upon
at all – Such awards will be relevant as a piece of evidence and not
be conclusive in nature – Even before its notification as a municipal
area, prices in Dharuhera, as evident from the exemplars cited by the
land losers, indicate a range of Rs. 1,30,00,000/- per acre and Rs.
1,80,72,289/- per acre, though for varying extent of lands – Hence,
even test laid down in Manoj Kumar satisfied – Reliance can safely
be placed on the award in BESCO to arrive at base value.

Potentiality Factor to be considered while assessing market
value:
Held: Potentiality is the use to which the land is put to use or
reasonably capable of being put to use – Potentiality of the land is
to be taken into consideration while assessing the market value –
Acquired lands surrounded by Modern Senior Secondary School,
Huda Sector 4 residential colony, bus stand, commercial shops,
2566 [2025] 4 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

Bajrang Nagar residential colony, Parshavnath residential flats, M2K
city, Bhagat Singh residential colony and other developed areas –
Cannot be disputed that acquired lands had immense potentiality
and could have been put to multifarious use.

Case Law Cited
BESCO Ltd. v. The State of Haryana and Ors., Civil Appeal No.
5376 of 2023 – relied on.
M/s Habitat Estates Pvt. Ltd. v. The State of Haryana & Ors., Civil
Appeal No. 2237 of 2024; New Okhla Industrial Development
Authority v. Harnand Singh (Deceased) through Lrs. and Ors.,
2024 SCC OnLine SC 1691; Mehrawal Khewaji Trust (Registered),
Faridkot and Ors. v. State of Punjab and Ors. [2012] 4 SCR 24 :
(2012) 5 SCC 432; Peerappa Hanmantha Harijan (Dead) by Legal
Representatives and Others v. State of Karnataka and Another [2015]
9 SCR 498 : (2015) 10 SCC 469; Chandrashekar (dead) by LRs and
Others v. Land Acquisition Officer and Another [2011] 15 SCR 414 :
(2012) 1 SCC 390; Sardara Singh and Others v. Land Acquisition
Collector, Improvement Trust, Rupnagar and Others (2020) 14 SCC
483; Bijender and Others v. State of Haryana and Another (2018)
11 SCC 180; Vithal Rao and Another v. Special Land Acquisition
Officer [2017] 6 SCR 335 : (2017) 8 SCC 558; Ravinder Narain v.
Union of India [2003] 2 SCR 424 : (2003) 4 SCC 481; Atma Singh v.
State of Haryana [2007] 12 SCR 1120 : (2008) 2 SCC 568; U.P.
Awas Evam Vikash Parishad v. Asha Ram (Dead) through legal
representatives and Others [2021] 3 SCR 751 : (2021) 17 SCC 289;
Nagpur Improvement Trust & Anr v. Vithal Rao & Anr. [1973] 3 SCR
39 : (1973) 1 SCC 500; Manoj Kumar and Others v. State of Haryana
and Others [2017] 8 SCR 997 : (2018) 13 SCC 96 – referred to.

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

List of Keywords
Land Acquisition; De-escalation; Enhancement; Potentiality factor;
Base value.

Case Arising From
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No(s).
4772-4773 of 2025
[2025] 4 S.C.R. 2567

Ram Kishan (Since Deceased) Through His Lrs Etc. v.
State of Haryana & Ors.

From the Judgment and Order dated 20.09.2022 of the High Court
of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in RFA No. 4240 and 3508
of 2019
With
Civil Appeal No(s). 4774, 4775, 4776, 4777, 4778-4782, 4783,
4784, 4785, 4786, 4787, 4788-4793, 4794, 4795, 4796, 4797 and
4798 of 2025

Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Appellants:
Ms. Kavita Wadia, S.B. Upadhyay, Gagan Gupta, Sr. Advs., Varun
Kumar, R. C. Kaushik, Sureshan P., Shivam Yadav, Rohan Yadav,
Tushar Mahajan, Ajit Kumar Ekka, Nishant Kumar, Ananta Prasad
Mishra.
Advs. for the Respondents:
Alok Sangwan, Sr. AAG., Akshay Amritanshu, Ms. Pragya
Upadhyay, Ms. Drishti Saraf, Ms. Swati Mishra, Sumit Kumar
Sharma, Rajat Sangwan.

Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court

Judgment

K.V. Viswanathan, J.

1. Delay in filing/refiling the Special Leave Petition(s) is condoned.
2. Leave granted.
3. Sixteen1 out of the twenty-seven matters in this batch calls in question
the correctness of the judgment passed by a learned Single Judge

1 1. C.A. @ SLP(C) Nos. 5544-5545/2023 (2 Matters)
2. C.A. @ SLP(C) Nos. 4044/2023
3. C.A. @ SLP(C) Nos. 4051/2023
4. C.A. @ SLP(C) Nos. 4045/2023
5. C.A. @ SLP(C) Nos. 4058/2023
6. C.A. @ SLP(C) Nos. 4052-4056/2023 (5 Matters)
7. C.A. @ SLP(C) Nos. 4048/2023
8. C.A. @ SLP(C) Nos. 4298/2023
9. C.A. @ SLP(C) Nos. 9166/2023
10. C.A. @ SLP(C) Nos. 15189/2023
11. C.A. @ SLP(C) Nos. 15188/2023
2568 [2025] 4 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in RFA
No. 701/2022 and batch dated 20.09.2022. By the said judgment,
the High Court, for reasons different from those recorded by the
Reference Court, maintained the award of Rs. 55,71,010/- per
acre as ordered by the Reference Court in its judgment dated
29.07.2019. Holding so, both the appeals of the land losers
and the State were dismissed. The land losers are in appeal(s)
before us.

THE ELEVEN DIRECTLY COVERED APPEALS2
4. Out of the twenty-seven matters in the batch, eleven matters pertain
to acquisition pursuant to the notification under Section 4 of the
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘LA Act’) dated 13.05.2010
and notification under Section 6 of LA Act dated 12.05.2011.
They pertained to village Malpura and Kapriwas. Insofar as these
eleven matters are concerned (arising out of judgment in RFA
No. 1625 of 2019 and batch dated 02.11.2021), it is not disputed
at the Bar that the same are directly covered by the judgments
of this Court in Civil Appeal No. 5376 of 2023 [BESCO Ltd. vs.
The State of Haryana and Ors.] and Civil Appeal No. 2237 of
2024 [M/s Habitat Estates Pvt. Ltd. vs. The State of Haryana
& Ors.]. The judgments have been delivered by this Court on
23.08.2023 and 13.02.2024 respectively. By the said judgment(s),
this Court allowed the appeals of the land losers and enhanced
the compensation to Rs. 1,49,14,975/- per acre along with other
statutory benefits. Hence, the eleven matters mentioned in this para
will be governed by the judgments passed by this Court in BESCO
Ltd (Supra) and M/s Habitat Estates Pvt. Ltd. (Supra) and the
land losers will be entitled to the same benefits as was ordered
by this Court. However, they will not be entitled to interest for the
period of delay in filing/delay in refiling after delayed filing of the
appeal(s).

2 1. C.A. @ SLP (C) Diary No. 53634/2023 (Total-6 Matters)
2. C.A. @ SLP (C) No. 14904/2024
3. C.A. @ SLP (C) No. 14905/2024
4. C.A. @ SLP (C) No. 14903/2024
5. C.A. @ SLP (C) No. 15529/2024
6. C.A. @ SLP (C) No. 14906/2024
[2025] 4 S.C.R. 2569

Ram Kishan (Since Deceased) Through His Lrs Etc. v.
State of Haryana & Ors.

THE OTHER SIXTEEN APPEALS3 – DHARUHERA VILLAGE
ACQUISITION BY SECTION 4 NOTIFICATION OF 12.12.2008
5. Insofar as the other sixteen matters are concerned, they pertained
to acquisition in village Dharuhera and were the subject matter of
acquisition by a Section 4 notification, issued on 12.12.2008. By the
said notification, lands of the appellants were proposed to be acquired
for Institutional Sector 5A under the Haryana Urban Development
Authority Act, 1977. The lands were situated in villages Dharuhera,
Garhi Alawalpur and Maheshwari, Sub-Tehsil Dharuhera, District
Rewari, Haryana. On 11.12.2009, a declaration under Section 6
was issued. The Land Acquisition Collector (‘LAC’ for short), by his
award of 30.11.2011, determined the market value of the land at
Rs. 21,00,000/- per acre based on the Divisional Level Land Rate
Fixation Committee report, though the demand of the landowners
was Rs. 2,00,00,000/- per acre. Other statutory benefits were allowed
and a total compensation of Rs. 12,46,27,371/- was awarded to all
the landowners whose lands were acquired pursuant to notification
dated 12.12.2008.
6. The appellants filed petitions under Section 18 of the LA Act, seeking
a reference for appropriate enhancement. The reference came to
be decided in LAC No. 122 of 2016 and LAC No. 123 of 2016.
Principally, it was contended that the State of Haryana has notified
Dharuhera Revenue Estate as a Municipal Committee Town in 2007;
that the acquired land was located on a prime stretch near developed
sectors and industrial areas in Dharuhera and had a significant
development potential; that the land is situated very near to the
industrial, commercial and residential sectors, already developed by
the Haryana Urban Development Authority (for short ‘HUDA’); that
the land is adjoining to developed residential and industrial area of
Bhiwadi also known as RIICO Industrial and Commercial Complex

3 1. C.A. @ SLP(C) Nos. 5544-5545/2023 (2 Matters)
2. C.A. @ SLP(C) Nos. 4044/2023
3. C.A. @ SLP(C) Nos. 4051/2023
4. C.A. @ SLP(C) Nos. 4045/2023
5. C.A. @ SLP(C) Nos. 4058/2023
6. C.A. @ SLP(C) Nos. 4052-4056/2023 (5 Matters)
7. C.A. @ SLP(C) Nos. 4048/2023
8. C.A. @ SLP(C) Nos. 4298/2023
9. C.A. @ SLP(C) Nos. 9166/2023
10. C.A. @ SLP(C) Nos. 15189/2023
11. C.A. @ SLP(C) Nos. 15188/2023
2570 [2025] 4 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

Bhiwadi; that the acquired land is situated on the main road of Sectors
4 and 6 of Dharuhera and also on Dharuhera-Bhiwadi-Sohna Road;
that HUDA had constructed main sector roads adjoining to sector 4
and 6, fully developed by HUDA from Dharuhera-Bhiwadi NH No. 71B
road to Highway No. 8 more than 10 years ago; that the developers
have constructed residential multistorey flats spreading over 60 acres;
that commercial complexes have also been constructed; that the
market price is not less than Rs. 15,000/- per sq. yard for residential
flats and commercial/institutional plots; that the land is adjoining
State Bank of India and very near to bus stand and Jungle Babbler
Tourist Complex of Govt. of Haryana; that the Modern Public School,
residential multistorey flats and petrol pumps are situated opposite
to the acquired land; that similarly hospitals and a Senior Secondary
School and residential complex are located on Highway No. 8, near
the acquired land; and that the Director, Town and Country Planning,
Haryana notified draft development plan of the Dharuhera town as
a residential-cum-commercial and industrial zone on priority basis
as the distance to Delhi was only 60 kms. They further contended
that the LAC failed to consider the market value of the surrounding
location of the already sold land where the value per acre was
Rs. 1,80,72,289/- by sale deed dated 13.05.2006 (Exh.PW4/G)
and sale deed dated 17.05.2006 (Exh. PW4/C) where the land was
sold for Rs.1,00,00,000/- per acre. A site plan Exh.PW6/1 was filed
before the Reference Court. We will deal with the site plan a little
later in this judgment.
7. At the hearing before the Reference Court, Mr. Motiram, Patwari of
LAC Office Gurugram, testified that the land of the appellants were
located on Highway No. 8 adjoining to Sector 6 and 4 developed by
HUDA at Dharuhera; that the land was adjoining to Bhiwadi (RIICO
Industrial Area) which was well developed for many years; though he
denied that the market value of the land was Rs. 15,000/ per sq. yard.

ACQUISITIONS IN MALPURA AND KAPRIWAS VILLAGES –
SECTION 4 NOTIFICATION OF 13.05.2010
8. At this stage, we need to digress a bit and deal with the acquisition
that was happening in the adjoining villages of Malpura and Kapriwas
for development of Dharuhera Industrial Sectors 15, 16 and 17. On
13.05.2010, a Section 4 notification was issued with regard to those
areas, followed by a Section 6 declaration on 12.05.2011. For those
lands, the LAC, by his award of 10.05.2013, awarded staggered rates
[2025] 4 S.C.R. 2571

Ram Kishan (Since Deceased) Through His Lrs Etc. v.
State of Haryana & Ors.

of Rs. 40,000/- per acre, Rs. 48,000/- per acre and Rs. 50,000/-
per acre, based on the recommendations of the District Collector,
Rewari who was a member of the Divisional Level Land Rates
Fixation Committee. The land losers filed reference in LAC No. 208
of 2016. By the judgment of 21.11.2018, the Reference Court held
that the most relevant sale deed in that reference was Exh.PW4/3,
a sale deed executed on 13.08.2008 pertaining to village Malpura
near to the lands acquired therein. The sale deed involved lands to
the extent of 12 kanals and 2 marlas. The sale consideration was
Rs. 2,16,00,000/- (Rs. 1,42,80,960/- per acre). Applying 60% deduction
for development costs, the Reference Court fixed the market value at
Rs. 67,12,050/- per acre along with statutory benefits. In appropriate
cases, compensation for super structure was also awarded.

REFERENCE COURT DECISIONS IN THE DHARUHERA
ACQUISITION
9. Coming back to the land of the appellants in the sixteen matters,
their reference LAC No. 122 of 2016 and LAC No. 123 of 2016 came
to be decided on 29.07.2019. This reference, in turn, relied on the
reasons in Inderpal vs. State of Haryana & Ors. delivered in LAC
No. 119 of 2016 which also arose under the same acquisition and
notification of 12.12.2008 (Section 4) and 11.12.2009 (Section 6).
The Reference Court in LAC No. 119 of 2016 which was the relied
upon judgment in LAC No. 122 of 2016 and LAC No. 123 of 2016
had, in turn, relied upon the judgment in LAC No. 208 of 2016 which
pertained to acquisition in village Malpura and Kapriwas, pursuant
to notification dated 13.05.2010 (under Section 4) and 12.05.2011
(under Section 6). The reasons why the Reference Court relied on
LAC No. 208 of 2016 were set out in the following terms:-
“16…..This court is alive of Award/Judgments passed by
it regarding acquisition of a adjoining village Malpura
passed by this court on 21.11.2018 in LA Case No.208
of 2016 titled as ‘Sultan Singh Vs State of Haryana &
Others (set of 53 cases) vide which compensation was
assessed at the rate of Rs.67,12,050/- (Rupees Sixty-
Seven Lac Twelve & Fifty only) per acre, irrespective of
the nature of land, in respect of the land of village Malpura,
which was acquired for the purpose for development of
industrial Sector 15,16 & 17 Dharuhera and present set
2572 [2025] 4 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

of 18 petitions are for the purpose of development &
utilization of institutional sector 5A Dharuhera.
17. Justice cannot be causality in the game of litigation and
Court on its own is competent to change the rules of the
game to do justice. It was so observed by Hon’ble Delhi
High Court in case-law Hoshiar Singh Mann Vs Charan
Singh - 2009(162) DLT 208; Law Finder Doc Id#203842.
Hence, this court gone directing the Reader of the court
to retrieve from the National eCourts portal (www.ecourts.
gov.in) above- referred judgment dated 21.11.2018 of this
court passed in LA Case No.208 of 2016 titled as ‘Sultan
Singh Vs State of Haryana & Others’ and place it on the
records of this case-file and henceforth said judgment
would be referred as Exh.C1.
18. Perusal of award dated 21.11.2018 (Exh.C1) passed by
this court in LA Case no.208 of 2016 titled as ‘Sultan Singh
Vs State of Haryana & Others; notification under Section
4 of the Act in said case was issued on 13.05.2010. The
land acquired in Exh.C1 pertains to village Malpura and
for the purpose of development of industrial sector-
15, 16 & 17 Dharuhera. The land acquired in present
matter is of village Dharuhera for the development &
utilization of land as institutional sector-5A Dharuhera.
The acquired land in both the matters is for the purpose
of development & utilization of sectors Dharuhera,
but there is a difference in the date of notification
under Section 4 in both the matters as notification in
the present case is one year five months prior to the
notification’ of award dated 13.05.2010 (Exh.C1). Case-law
Harbhajan Kaur Vs Union Territory Chandigarh -2009(9)
PLR 520 (P&H) become relevant on this point as therein
award for adjoining village was made six months prior
and Hon’ble High Court placed reliance thereupon by
making reasonable cut of 6% for the time gap in the two
notifications. Since basic rule is of 12% increase/decrease
and Hon’ble High Court in case-law Harbhajan Kaur (supra)
has applied cut of 6% for six month’s time gap, so on that
analogy a reasonable cut of 12% can well be applied in
the present matter for time gap of one year & five months
(17 months) in the two notifications.
[2025] 4 S.C.R. 2573

Ram Kishan (Since Deceased) Through His Lrs Etc. v.
State of Haryana & Ors.

19. In view of peculiar facts & circumstances of the case,
this court has arrived at the conclusion that the acquisition
in the present case was made seventeen months prior to
the notification pertaining to award Exh.C1. If a Reasonable
cut of 12% is applied over Rs.67,12,050/- (compensation
awarded in Exh.C1) for the time gap in the two notifications,
the value of the acquired land in the present case comes
to Rs.55,71,010/- per acre. Accordingly, it is held that
the landowners in the present set of petitions shall be
entitled to compensation for the acquired land at the rate
of Rs.55,71,010/- (Rupees Fifty Five Lac Seventy One
Thousand & Ten only) per acre. They shall also be entitled
to all the statutory benefits available under the Act and
this issue is decided, accordingly.”
(Emphasis supplied)

10. It will be clear from the above reasoning, the Court considered
placing reliance on award in LAC No. 208 of 2016 pertaining to the
adjoining village of Malpura will not be mechanical for the reason
that acquisition was for development of industrial sectors 15, 16 & 17
Dharuhera whereas in LAC No. 119 of 2016 (similar to LAC No. 122
of 2016 and LAC No. 123 of 2016) is for development and utilization
of Institutional Sector 5A Dharuhera. Considering the difference in the
date, the Court applied the principle of reverse deduction and fixed
the compensation at Rs. 55,71,010/- per acre along with statutory
benefits for the land losers in LAC No. 119 of 2016 (similar to LAC
No. 122 of 2016 and LAC No. 123 of 2016).
11. The land losers in the present appeal(s) filed appeal in RFA No. 4240
of 2019 and batch before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana.
The State of Haryana also filed appeals challenging the award in
Inderpal case (Supra) in RFA No. 701 of 2022.

HIGH COURT PROCEEDINGS IN THE MALPURA-KAPRIWAS
ACQUISITIONS
12. Simultaneously, there were developments before the High Court in the
Regular First Appeals filed by the land losers and the beneficiary in
the reference arising out of LAC No. 208 of 2016. In the said RFAs,
namely, RFA No. 1350 of 2019 and RFA No. 3991 of 2019, the High
Court allowed the appeal(s) of the land losers on 02.11.2021under
2574 [2025] 4 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

the notification of 13.05.2010 (Section 4) and dismissed the cross
objections of the beneficiary and enhanced the compensation from
Rs. 67,12,050/- per acre to Rs. 1,21,33,320/- per acre. The High
Court held as follows:-
“4.12 Keeping in view the aforesaid discussion, it is
evident that the Reference Court has committed an error
in deducting 60% from the sale exemplar produced by the
landowners and relied upon by it.”
4.15 ……In the considered view of this Court, once the land
measuring 12 Kanals & 2 Marlas, which is more than one
and a half acre, located across the National Highway (the-
eastern side of the National Highway) has been sold @ ₹
1,42,80,916/- per acre, then, it was not appropriate for the
Reference Court to apply 60% cut. One and a half acre of
land is not a small area of land. Further, the acquired land
cannot be said to be used only for agricultural purposes
particularly when the companies have started purchasing
the same. In fact, Delta Cables Limited has purchased the
land measuring, 12 kanals & 2 Marlas.
4.16 From a careful perusal of the layout plan (Ex.R12)
along with the sale deeds, it becomes evident that the
sale instance (Ex.P2) is with respect to the land measuring
6 Kanals & 19 Marlas. This is with respect to the land
comprised in rectangle No. 49, 50, 51 and 52, located in
village Kapriwas, which has also been acquired under the
same notification. The layout plan clearly shows that the
aforesaid parcel of land is abutting the boundary of village
Malpura. In fact, there is no physical boundary between
the villages. It is only a notional/fictional boundary so as to
identify the land located in different villages. Furthermore,
it is evident that in village Malpura, the land abutting the
Delhi-Jaipur Highway upto the depth of approximately 10
acres has been acquired. It is significant to note that the
land in village Malpura was sold @ ₹ 1,42,80,991/- per acre
vide a sale deed dated 13.08.2008 (Ex.PW.4/3). However,
this parcel of the land is comprised in rectangle No. 29
and khasra No. 4 & 5, which is on the other side (western
side) i.e. across the National Highway-8. Although this
parcel of land is not comparable however, it corroborates
[2025] 4 S.C.R. 2575

Ram Kishan (Since Deceased) Through His Lrs Etc. v.
State of Haryana & Ors.

Ex.P2 with respect to the market value of the acquired
land. Moreover, in additional evidence, the landowners
have produced the sale instance dated 15.02.2010 with
respect to the land measuring 5 Kanals & 2 Marlas sold
@ ₹ 2,23,72,463/- per acre. This parcel of the land is also
located on the western side of the National Highway-8 and
at some distance from the acquired land.
4.17 Since the most appropriate sale exemplar appears
to be Ex.P2, which is not only abutting the acquired land
but also forms a part of the acquired land, therefore, it is
safe to rely upon the same. However, the sale instance
is of 19.06.2008, whereas the notification under Section
4 of the 1894 Act was issued on 13.05.2010. The Court
is required to determine the market value of the acquired
land as on 13.05.2010. From a careful perusal of the
sale exemplar (Ex.PW4/3) and the sale deed produced in
additional evidence (Ex.PY), it becomes evident that the
price of the land was increasing quite rapidly. The location
of the acquired land is prime. In fact, the Industrial Estate
of Dharuhera has already been developed and a lot of
builders/developers/industrialists have already started
purchasing the properties in and around the Industrial
Estate of Dharuhera. Hence, it will be safe to assume
that the market value of the land was increasing @ 10%
per annum. Taking into consideration the aforesaid facts,
the amount arrived at comes to ₹1,21,33,320/- per acre.
The Court is expected to take a pragmatic view while
assessing the market value, particularly when the
parcel of land covered by Ex.P2, although situated
in village Kapriwas, is abutting the acquired land of
village Malpura. The land sold through Ex.P2 has also
been acquired Hence, the market value of the land is
assessed at ₹1,21,33,320/- per acre.”
(Emphasis supplied)

13. Ultimately, the High Court with regard to the lands pertaining to
acquisition made under the notification of 13.05.2010 (Section 4)
fixed the compensation at Rs. 1,21,33,320/- per acre along with
other statutory benefits. Holding so, it allowed the appeal(s) of the
2576 [2025] 4 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

land losers and dismissed the cross objection of the beneficiary. The
same result followed in RFA No. 3091 No. 2019 (HSIIDC v. Deepak
Kumar & Ors.)
14. The land losers under the notification of 13.05.2010 (Section 4) who
were ordered to be paid Rs. 1,21,33,320/- per acre, aggrieved, filed
Special Leave Petition (C) No. 4487 of 2022 & batch and Special
Leave Petition (C) No. 6127 of 2022 and batch before this Court
which was later converted to Civil Appeal No. 5376 of 2023 and Civil
Appeal 2237 of 2024 respectively.

HIGH COURT PROCEEDINGS IN THE DHARUHERA
ACQUISITIONS:- PRESENT APPEALS
15. Pending those appeals in this Court, the High Court took up the
appeals (RFA) of the landowners in the present appeals. Since the
Reference Court had found justification for reliance on the award
in LAC No. 208 of 2016 (arising out of acquisition notification
13.05.2010 with appropriate reverse deduction), the land losers
pointed out to the High Court that in those matters there has been
further enhancement from Rs. 67,12,050/- to Rs. 1,21,33,320/- and
wanted at least parity, if not a further increase. The High Court
held that there was no evidence to prove that the acquired land in
village Malpura vide notification dated 13.05.2010 was comparable
in its geographical location, valuation and other factors and hence
the Reference Court erred in placing reliance on the award in LAC
No. 208 of 2016.
16. The High Court also faulted the Reference Court for not considering
the sale deeds produced by the parties including sale deeds which
reflected a price lesser than the amount offered by the LAC. The High
Court referred to the layout plan produced by the State and relied
on Exh. PW4/D dated 02.05.2006 and rejected the other sale deeds
and after applying cumulative increase @ 12% per year from the
sale deed amount of Rs. 40,55,000/- per acre, arrived at a figure of
Rs. 54,42,653/-. Thereafter, the High Court concluded that the
awarded amount by the Reference Court of Rs. 55,71,010/- was
broadly the same. For reasons other than the one adduced by the
Reference Court, the High Court confirmed the judgment of the
Reference Court and dismissed the appeals of the landowners as
well as the State. Aggrieved, the landowners are in appeal(s).
[2025] 4 S.C.R. 2577

Ram Kishan (Since Deceased) Through His Lrs Etc. v.
State of Haryana & Ors.

PROCEEDINGS IN THIS COURT IN THE MALPURA-KAPRIWAS
ACQUISITION
17. In the meantime, this Court, by its judgment of 23.08.2023 and
13.02.2024 decided Civil Appeal No. 5376 of 2023 and Civil Appeal
No. 2237 of 2024 and enhanced the compensation with respect to
lands acquired in village Malpura vide notification dated 13.05.2010
and village Kapriwas from the awarded amount of Rs. 1,21,33,320/- to
Rs. 1,49,14,975/- per acre along with statutory benefits. This Court
held that the applicable deduction should be 33% and not 60% and
enhanced the compensation to Rs. 1,49,14,975/-. During the course
of the discussion, this Court observed as follows:
“The landowners based on the potential of the acquired
land claim commensurate market value as of 13.05.2010.
The acquired land is in a controlled area declared by the
State of Haryana. Industrial Estate Dharuhera, Primary
School at Village Maheshwari, Ghatal Mahaniawas and
Aakera are at a proximate distance. The acquired land is
claimed as situated in the industrial zone at Sector 15,
Dharuhera. Apart from the advantageous neighborhood of
establishments and industries, the land under acquisition
is located alongside National Highway No. 8, i.e., Delhi-
Jaipur Highway and Industrial Sectors 15, 16 & 17. Further,
land sectors 8, 9, 10, 12 & 13 are opposite the industrial
sectors of 17 and 16 across National Highway No. 8. Many
development activities have occurred in and around the
land acquired. The landowners refer to the existence of
industrial units such as Penam Labs, U.B. Group, Capsu
Gel, Weston, Hero Motors Ltd., RIICO, Omax, Sona Koya,
M. Teck, Bestech, Utility Engineering, Luthra, IST etc. within
a radius of 1 k.m. of the acquired land. The acquired land
had change in land use (CLU) under the Punjab Scheduled
Roads and Controlled Areas Restriction of Unregulated
Development Act, 1963. The gist is that the acquired land
cannot be treated as an agricultural land.”

CONTENTIONS IN THE PRESENT APPEALS
18. We have heard Mr. S. B. Upadhyay, Ms. Kavita Wadia and Mr. Gagan
Gupta, Learned Senior Counsels for the appellants and Mr. Alok
Sangwan, Learned Additional Advocate General for the respondents.
2578 [2025] 4 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

19. Learned Senior Counsels for the appellants have assailed the
judgment of the High Court by contending that the High Court could
not have solely gone by the exemplar in exhibit PW-4/D; according
to them even sale exemplars PW-4/C dated 17.05.2006 with a per
acre rate of one crore, PW-4/E sale deed dated 29.05.2006 with a
per acre rate of Rs. 95,00,000/-, PW-4/F sale deed dated 29.05.2006
with a per acre rate of Rs. 95,00,000/-, and PW-4/H sale deed dated
08.01.2007 with a per acre rate of Rs. 1,80,72,289/- were also
equidistant from the acquired land though from the opposite side; that
the High Court itself noticed that some part of the acquired land was
near PW-4/C; that PW-4/E and PW-4/F were the most appropriate;
that it is well settled that where there are several exemplars, the
highest exemplar ought to have been taken and for this proposition
they relied on Mehrawal Khewaji Trust (Registered), Faridkot and
Ors. v. State of Punjab and Ors., (2012) 5 SCC 432. According to
the appellants, if the value of PW-4/E and PW-4/F dated 29.05.2006
is taken and 12 % p.a. upward increase is added the compensation
would work out to approximately Rs. 1,17,80,000/- per acre. Learned
counsel for the appellants further contend that the acquired land
touches the main Highway NH-71B Sohna Road; that it had a big
residential colony opposite to it namely, Sector 4A, Dharuhera and
there are multiple schools and townships within 1KM.
20. According to the appellants, the land is surrounded by Multinational
Companies like Honda, Sehgal Papers, Cool Beverages, Lumax
Industries Ltd., K.J. Auto Parts and Real Estate Developers like
M2K and Dwarkadhish. According to the appellants, their lands are
also adjacent to the HSIIDC Dharuhera, Huda sectors and Municipal
Committees of Dharuhera. Learned Counsel for the appellants
relied on the recent judgment of this Court in New Okhla Industrial
Development Authority v. Harnand Singh (Deceased) through
Lrs and Ors., 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1691, to contend that the sale
deed which is a sole exemplar if relied upon as the sole foundation
would inadequately represent the value of the land, apart from being
significantly risky.
21. Strong reliance was placed upon the judgments of this Court in
Besco (supra) and Habitat (supra), wherein this Court enhanced the
compensation to Rs. 1,49,14,975/-. According to the learned Senior
Counsels, the proximity of the appellants’ land in village Dharuhera
to the lands acquired in village Malpura, Kapriwas and Sidhrawali
[2025] 4 S.C.R. 2579

Ram Kishan (Since Deceased) Through His Lrs Etc. v.
State of Haryana & Ors.

was apparent from the map produced by them in the courts below.
According to them, the land in village Malpura which was acquired,
adjoins their land in Dharuhera and they sought parity with the
landowners in Besco (supra) and Habitat (supra). According to the
appellants, even the Reference Court found justification for applying
the market value arrived at in LAC No. 208 in 2016, as the base
figure to work out reverse deduction.
22. According to the learned Counsel, if in RFAs arising out of LAC
No. 208 of 2016 the value stood enhanced from Rs. 67,12,050/-
per acre to Rs. 1,21,33,320/- by the High Court and thereafter, to
Rs. 1,49,14,975/- by this Court there is no reason not to treat this
value as the base figure to work out reverse deduction. According
to them, the distance between Malpura and Dharuhera is only 5 km
and equally the distance between Dharuhera and Kapriwas is also
5 km. According to the appellants, while in LAC No. 208 of 2016
land was acquired for industrial sector 14, 15, and 16 Dharuhera
under the 13.05.2010 notification under section 4, the appellants’
lands were acquired by notification of 12.12.2008 for institutional
sector 5 Dharuhera. According to the appellants, that being so, the
potential of the land could not have been ignored. According to the
appellants, the High Court has noticed that Dharuhera and Garhi
Alawalpur were adjoining villages and having held so it committed
an error in ignoring all other sale deeds except exhibit PW-4/E.
23. A perusal of the chart of the exemplars set out in the impugned
order reveals that exhibit PW-4/H dated 08.01.2007 was a sale
deed of village Garhi Alawalpur where the market value was
Rs. 1,40,00,000/- per acre. Equally, exhibit PW-4/I a sale deed dated
10.07.2010 in land situated in village Dharuhera the market value of
land was Rs. 1,30,00,000/-. According to the learned Counsel, it is
well settled that if comparable sales are not available in the same
village, it is always open to the Reference Court to consider sales in
the adjoining villages during the relevant period. Learned Counsels
relied upon the judgments which showed that compensation awarded
in respect of other villages, under certain circumstances, can be relied
upon for fixing the compensation of lands by providing appropriate
appreciation or deduction depending on the facts obtaining in the
case. Learned Counsel submitted that the potentiality of the land
was the same insofar as their lands were concerned like it was in
the case of lands acquired in the village Malpura and Kapriwas by
2580 [2025] 4 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

the notification of 30.05.2010. Learned Counsel contended that the
land has immense potentiality.

CONTENTIONS OF THE STATE
24. Learned Counsel for the State has encountered the submission of
the appellants and submitted that the value fixed in Besco (supra)
and Habitat (supra) cannot be applied to the appellants’ land
since the lands were acquired in the appellant’s case by a different
notification of 12.12.2008 and the lands in Besco (supra) and Habitat
(supra) were acquired by a Section 4 notification of 13.05.2010.
Apart from this, the lands in Besco (supra) and Habitat (supra)
were situated in villages Malpura and Kapriwas, whereas the lands
of the appellants were situated in village Dharuhera. Further, the
lands were not comparable according to the counsel for the State,
since the acquired land in Besco (supra) in village Kapriwas was
situated on National Highway, whereas the land in question is far
away from the National Highway. According to learned Counsel for
the State, exhibit PW-4/D was rightly relied upon by the High Court
since the land is only 3 km. away from the acquired land. According
to the learned Counsel for the State, the other exemplars were rightly
rejected. According to the counsel for the State, in Besco (supra)
the land losers had acquired change of land use by paying heavy
statutory charges and as such the market value is not comparable.
Learned Counsel for the State relied on the order passed in
SLP (Civil) No. 11275 of 2016 [Rajbir and Others vs. State of
Haryana and Ors.] and batch to support the proposition that the
award of the subsequent acquisition with appropriate deduction
could not have been adopted by the Reference Court.

RELEVANT LEGAL PRINCIPLES

(i) PRINCIPLE OF DE-ESCALATION AND ESCALATION
25. In Peerappa Hanmantha Harijan (Dead) by Legal Representatives
and Others vs. State of Karnataka and Another, (2015) 10 SCC
469, finding that lands which were acquired by a later notification in
1988 were adjacent to the lands acquired in the case in question in
1981, this Court applied the principle of de-escalation. The relevant
parts of the judgment are set out hereunder:
“77. Further, the land which has been covered under
notification in 1988 is also adjacent to the residential sites
[2025] 4 S.C.R. 2581

Ram Kishan (Since Deceased) Through His Lrs Etc. v.
State of Haryana & Ors.

which were formed. The landowners in that case produced
the sale deeds of the years 1986 and 1988 respectively,
which was 2 years and 2 months earlier respectively to
the notification issued in the year 1988 and some of which
were two to three years earlier. Taking the said relevant
facts into consideration, the High Court of Karnataka
redetermined the compensation at Rs 7.5 per square feet
of land bearing Survey No. 389 covered in award passed
in MFA No. 3796 of 2005 and Cross-Objection No. 213
of 2005 after giving deduction towards the developmental
charges, de-escalation and conversion charges. The same
method should be applied in the case on hand.
78. Further, the High Court ought to have taken into
consideration the relevant fact that though the final
notification for the land covered in MFA No. 3796 of 2005
and Cross-Objection No. 213 of 2005 was in the year 1988,
it was for industrial development and the said land was
also leased in favour of the allottee Company by KIADB
to be used for the industrial development. The land along
with the other lands covered in the 1981 notification
was also acquired by the State Government for the
purpose of the industrial development and allotted
to the Company for the development of the industrial
estate. Therefore, apart from the fact that there was
a gap of 7 years in which the lands of the appellants
were notified for acquisition to the land covered in
MFA No. 3796 of 2005 and Cross-Objection No. 213
of 2005, it is an admitted fact that there is similarity
in the nature of the land and the purpose for which
they were acquired.
80. As per the survey conducted by the State Government,
it is an undisputed fact that mineral is available in the land
and the Company is extracting the same to be used as
raw material for the manufacture of cement in its factory.
Therefore, though the land in the present case is a short
distance away from the lands covered in MFA No. 3796
of 2005 and Cross-Objection No. 213 of 2005, both have
been acquired for the purpose of industrial development
and sought to be used for the same purpose by the
Company. The land of the appellants herein along
2582 [2025] 4 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

with other lands that was acquired vide notification
in 1981 has been allotted in favour of the Company
for the purpose of extracting the mineral of limestone
which is the raw material used for the purpose of
manufacturing the cement used for the commercial
purpose. Therefore, the land of the appellants is
acquired for the non-agricultural potentiality and the
same is used for commercial purpose. Therefore,
determining deductions towards de-escalation at 5%
per year for 7 years and 10% towards waiting and other
incidental charges would justify the redetermination
of the market value of the land of the appellants.”
26. Moreover, in Chandrashekar (dead) by LRs and Others vs. Land
Acquisition Officer and Another, (2012) 1 SCC 390, this Court,
while recognising the Principle of De-escalation held in Para 37, 40
and 42 as under:-
37. Even though escalation of market price of land is a
question of fact, which should ordinarily be proved through
cogent evidence yet, keeping in mind ground realities, and
taking judicial notice thereof, we are of the view that land
prices are on the rise throughout the country. The outskirts
of Gulbarga Town are certainly not an exception to the rule.
The exemplar sale deed dated 30-12-1983 was executed
exactly 1 year 7 months and 17 days after the publication
of the preliminary Notification on 13-5-1982. Keeping
in mind the judgments referred to hereinabove, we
are of the view, that no fault can be found with the
determination rendered by the High Court in making a
deduction of 10% under the head of “de-escalation”,
specially when the period in question exceeded one
year (as for annual deductions), by 7 months and 17
days.
40. Based on the aforesaid deductions, the High Court
calculated the market value of the acquired land at
Rs 67,954 per acre. In spite of the above, the market
value of the acquired land for disbursement of
compensation to the land-losers was fixed by the High
Court at Rs 65,000 per acre. A perusal of the judgment
rendered by the High Court reveals that in allowing
[2025] 4 S.C.R. 2583

Ram Kishan (Since Deceased) Through His Lrs Etc. v.
State of Haryana & Ors.

final compensation at the rate of Rs 65,000 per acre to
the land-losers, the High Court had placed reliance on
market value fixed by the High Court itself in an earlier
case. In this behalf, it would be pertinent to mention,
that the High Court had awarded Rs 65,000 per acre
as compensation payable to the land-losers, in an
earlier process of litigation pertaining to acquisition
of land, out of the same notification (under which
the appellants’ land was acquired). The aforesaid
determination was rendered in respect of the land
acquired from the revenue estate of Badepur Village.
42. The conclusions drawn by us hereinabove apply equally
to Civil Appeals Nos. 8899-901 of 2011. In this behalf it
would also be pertinent to mention, that the conclusions
drawn by us pertain to acquisition of land falling in the
revenue estate of Village Badepur. Insofar as the instant
set of appeals are concerned, they pertain to land acquired
from the revenue estate of Village Rajapur. The High
Court, while making a reference to the land acquired from
Village Rajapur, noticed that Village Rajapur had a lower
market value as it was farther from the nerve centre of
Gulbarga Town as compared to Village Badepur. As such,
we are of the view that in the facts and circumstances
of the present case, it would be just and appropriate to
affirm the compensation determined by the High Court at
Rs 65,000 per acre, even for the land acquired from the
revenue estate of Village Rajapur.”
27. Similarly, in Sardara Singh and Others vs. Land Acquisition
Collector, Improvement Trust, Rupnagar and Others, (2020) 14
SCC 483, this Court considered as the base value award of the
previous acquisitions of lands from adjoining villages to the village in
question. In that case, the Court applied the principle of escalation.
Para 9,11 and 12 of the said judgement are set out hereinbelow:-
“9. What emerges, therefore, is that in respect of lands
coming from Kotla Nihang, which were acquired vide
Notification dated 20-3-1985, the compensation was
awarded @ Rs 4,84,000 (Rupees four lakh eighty-four
thousand) per acre and in respect of lands which were
acquired from Village Haveli Khurd vide Notification dated
2584 [2025] 4 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

12-4-1989 the compensation was awarded @ Rs 5,25,000
(Rupees five lakh twenty-five thousand) per acre. Mr Jain
relied upon the site map appended at page 178 of the
paper book to bring home the point that these two
villages are adjoining to the village, with which we
are presently concerned.
11. The fact that the acquisition in the aforesaid two
villages was relied upon before the Land Acquisition
Tribunal is quite evident from the discussion as
aforesaid. The location and the potential of the
lands under acquisition and their proximity with the
lands from Kotla Nihang and Haveli Khurd was the
basis of computation in the award dated 9-11-2001
which was set aside purely on a technical ground.
The rates awarded in respect of those acquisitions were
Rs 4,85,000 (Rupees four lakh eighty-five thousand) and
Rs 5,25,000 (Rupees five lakh twenty-five thousand) per
acre. The acquisitions were of the years 1985 and
1989. We are presently concerned with acquisitions
which were initiated pursuant to notifications issued
in the year 1993.
12. In our view, the compensation as awarded in
respect of these two villages is a pointer which
cannot be disregarded. The extent of land involved in
the present matters is 25 acres of land which was to be
used for Transport Nagar Scheme, essentially an urban
requirement. We, therefore, rely upon rate of Rs 5,25,000
(Rupees five lakh twenty-five thousand) per acre, as
awarded in the year 1989 to be the base rate to arrive at
the appropriate compensation for the acquisition in 1993
i.e. after four years. In the circumstances, in our view,
the appellants are entitled to 6% cumulative increase
over the base rate of Rs 5,25,000 (Rupees five lakh
twenty-five thousand) irrespective of the category of
land is awarded to the landholders.”
28. In Sardara Singh (Supra), this Court also distinguished the judgment
in Manoj Kumar and Others vs. State of Haryana and Others,
(2018) 13 SCC 96 and stated that the observations in the said case
were made in the context of the peculiar facts of the matter.
[2025] 4 S.C.R. 2585

Ram Kishan (Since Deceased) Through His Lrs Etc. v.
State of Haryana & Ors.

RELEVANCE OF PRIOR AWARDS
29. In Manoj Kumar (Supra), this Court in Para 11,12,13,14 and 16
held as under.
“11. In our opinion, the High Court could not have placed
an outright reliance on Swaran Singh v. State of Haryana,
2012 SCC OnLine P&H 19044, without considering the
nature of transaction relied upon in the said decision.
The decision could not have been applied ipso facto to
the facts of the instant case. In such cases, where such
judgments/awards are relied on as evidence, though they
are relevant, but cannot be said to be binding with respect
to the determination of the price, that has to depend on the
evidence adduced in the case. However, in the instant
case, it appears that the land in Swaran Singh case was
situated just across the road as observed by the High
Court as such it is relevant evidence but not binding.
As such it could have been taken into consideration due
to the nearness of the area, but at the same time what
was the nature of the transaction relied upon in the said
case was also required to be looked into in an objective
manner. Such decisions in other cases cannot be adopted
without examining the basis for determining compensation
whether sale transaction referred to therein can be relied
upon or not and what was the distance, size and also bona
fide nature of transaction before such judgments/awards
are relied on for deciding the subsequent cases. It is not
open to accepting determination in a mechanical manner
without considering the merit. Such determination cannot
be said to be binding.
12. We have come across several decisions where the High
Court is adopting the previous decisions as binding. The
determination of compensation in each case depends
upon the nature of land and what is the evidence
adduced in each case, may be that better evidence has
been adduced in later case regarding the actual value
of property and subsequent sale deeds after the award
and before preliminary notification under Section 4
are also to be considered, if filed. It is not proper to
ignore the evidence adduced in the case at hand.
2586 [2025] 4 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

The compensation cannot be determined by blindly
following the previous award/judgment. It has to be
considered only a piece of evidence, not beyond that.
The court has to apply the judicial mind and is supposed not
to follow the previous awards without due consideration of
the facts and circumstances and evidence adduced in the
case in question. The current value reflected by comparable
sale deeds is more reliable and binding for determination
of compensation in such cases award/judgment relating
to an acquisition made before 5 to 10 years cannot form
the safe basis for determining compensation.
13. The awards and judgment in the cases of others not
being inter partes are not binding as precedents. Recently,
we have seen the trend of the courts to follow them blindly
probably under the misconception of the concept of equality
and fair treatment. The courts are being swayed away and
this approach in the absence of and similar nature and
situation of land is causing more injustice and tantamount
to giving equal treatment in the case of unequals. As per
situation of a village, nature of land, its value differ from
distance to distance, even two to three kilometre distance
may also make the material difference in value. Land
abutting highway may fetch higher value but not land
situated in interior villages.
14. The previous awards/judgments are the only piece
of evidence on a par with comparative sale transactions.
The similarity of the land covered by previous judgment/
award is required to be proved like any other comparative
exemplar. In case previous award/judgment is based on
exemplar, which is not similar or acceptable, previous
award/judgment of court cannot be said to be binding.
Such determination has to be outrightly rejected. In case
some mistake has been done in awarding compensation,
it cannot be followed; on the ground of parity an illegality
cannot be perpetuated. Such award/judgment would be
wholly irrelevant.
16. To base determination of compensation on a
previous award/judgment, the evidence considered in
the previous judgment/award and its acceptability on
[2025] 4 S.C.R. 2587

Ram Kishan (Since Deceased) Through His Lrs Etc. v.
State of Haryana & Ors.

judicial parameters has to be necessarily gone into,
otherwise, gross injustice may be caused to any of the
parties. In case some gross mistake or illegality has been
committed in previous award/judgment of not making
deduction, etc. and/or sufficient evidence had not been
adduced and better evidence is adduced in case at
hand, previous award/judgment being not inter partes
cannot be followed and if land is not similar in nature in
all aspects it has to be outrightly rejected as done in the
case of comparative exemplars. Sale deeds are on a par
for evidentiary value with such awards of the court as
court bases its conclusions on such transaction only, to
ultimately determine the value of the property.”
30. Even in Manoj Kumar (Supra), this Court did not hold that awards
in other cases which are relevant cannot be relied upon at all. What
is held was such awards will be relevant as a piece of evidence and
not be conclusive in nature.

POTENTIALITY FACTOR:-
31. It is also well settled that potentiality of the land is also to be taken
into consideration while assessing the market value. It has been
held that potentiality is the use to which the land is put to use or
reasonably capable of being put to use. [See Bijender and Others vs.
State of Haryana and Another, (2018) 11 SCC 180, Vithal Rao
and Another vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer, (2017) 8 SCC
558, Ravinder Narain vs. Union of India, (2003) 4 SCC 481, Atma
Singh vs. State of Haryana, (2008) 2 SCC 568 and U.P. Awas
Evam Vikash Parishad vs. Asha Ram (Dead) through legal
representatives and Others (2021) 17 SCC 289].
32. Mr. Alok Sangwan, Learned Additional Advocate General relied
on the judgment in Rajbir (Supra). The said short order observed
that the High Court in that case went wrong in placing reliance on
a subsequent acquisition, by introducing method of appropriate
reduction. Those observations have to be understood as having
been made on the special facts of that case. It is not clear from the
said order whether the lands subjected to acquisition were proximate
and adjoining to the lands in the subsequent acquisition and whether
they were having similar characteristics. Hence, that case can be
of no use to the State.
2588 [2025] 4 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

ANALYSIS OF FACTS:-
33. We have carefully considered the contentions of the respective
sides. Having considered the respective submissions and perused
the records, including the sketch PW6/1, we find that the following
facts emerge:-
a) Firstly, Dharuhera Village was notified as a municipal land and
Municipal Committee was also notified on 20.07.2007;
b) Secondly, the lands acquired under the notification of
18.05.2010 (Section 4) of villages Malpura and Kapriwas were
for development of Dharuhera industrial sectors 15, 16 and 17
and the lands notified of the appellants herein on 12.12.2008
(Sector 4) were for Dharuhera Institutional Sector 5A;
c) Thirdly, the villages are adjoining as the sketch PW-6/1 indicates.
The acquired lands in the notifications of 12.12.2008 and
13.05.2010 were on the two sides of the NH-8 Jaipur-Delhi
Highway;
d) Fourthly, the sketch also indicates that the Revenue Estate
Malpura and Bestech Mall are adjoining to the acquired lands;
e) Fifthly, the acquired lands are surrounded by Modern Senior
Secondary School, Huda Sector 4 residential colony, bus-
stand, commercial shops, Bajrang Nagar residential colony,
Parshavnath residential flats, M2K city, Bhagat Singh residential
colony and other developed areas. Hence, the lands had
immense potentiality and that it could have been put to
multifarious use cannot be disputed.
f) Sixthly, the Reference Court, in the present case, relied upon the
judgment of the Reference Court in Besco (supra), after finding
that both pertain to sectors of Dharuhera with the appellants’
land forming part of Sector 5A and the lands in Besco (supra)
forming part of Sector 15, 16 and 17. It was categorically noticed
that the villages were adjoining and the purpose of acquisition
in both matters was development and utilization for sectors in
Dharuhera (institutional and industrial respectively) and the
difference was also in the date of the notification.
g) Seventhly, the Reference Court, after taking the base value
of the compensation, awarded in Besco (supra) applied de-
escalation @ 12% for 17 months;
[2025] 4 S.C.R. 2589

Ram Kishan (Since Deceased) Through His Lrs Etc. v.
State of Haryana & Ors.

h) Eighthly, a perusal of the exemplars cited by the appellants
Exh. PW4/A-PW4/I of sale of lands in villages Dharuhera and
Garhi Alawalpur between 29.12.2005 and 08.01.2007 show
per acre price ranging from Rs.60,000/- per acre in 2005
to Rs.80,72,289/- per acre in May, 2006, though the extent
of land is different in each of the sale deeds. The exemplar
of sale deeds relied upon by the appellants are extracted
hereinbelow:-
Sale Deeds adduced in evidence by the landowners

Sr. Exhibit Sale Date Area Sale Rate per Village
No. Deed Consideration acre
No.

1. PW4/A 2914 29.12.2005 118K- 8,89,12,500/- 60,00,000/- Dharuhera
11M

2. PW4/B 2 03.04.2006 91K- 9,44,10,940/- 82,50,000/- Dharuhera
11M

3. PW4/C 406 17.05.2006 28K- 3,60,62,500/- 1,00,00,000/- Dharuhera
17M

4. PW4/D 245 02.05.2006 108K- 5,49,50,000/- 40,55,350/- Dharuhera
8M

5. PW4/E 554 29.05.2006 25K- 3,01,62,500/- 95,00,000/- Garhi
8M Alawalpur

6. PW4/F 556 29.05.2006 4K- 49,87,500/- 95,00,000/- Garhi
4M Alawalpur

7. PW4/G 480 13.05.2006 33K- 7,70,00,000/- 1,80,72,289/- Dharuhera
4M

8. PW4/H 2663 08.01.2007 92K- 16,16,12,500/- 1,40,00,000/- Garhi
7M Alawalpur

9. PW4/I 1740 10.07.2010 32K- 5,33,81,250/- 1,30,00,000/- Dharuhera
17M

The exemplar sale deeds relied upon by the State is also set
out herein below:-
2590 [2025] 4 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

Sale deeds adduced in evidence by the State

Sr. Exhibit Sale Date Area Sale Rate per Village
No. Deed Consideration acre
No.

1. R-5 683 04.02.2008 3K- 7M 8,80,000/- 21,01,492/- Dharuhera

2. R-6 1122 18.11.2008 17K-9M 45,81,000/- 21,01,492/- Dharuhera

3. R-7 1540 15.02.2009 2K- 0M 5,25,000/- 21,00,000/- Dharuhera

4. R-8 1657 09.01.2008 8K- 0M 19,00,000/- 19,00,000/- Dharuhera

i) The sale deeds produced by the State pertain to the period
09.01.2008 to 15.02.2009. What is important to note is there is
vast difference in the prices in the exemplars produced by the
appellants and by the State. In fact, the exemplars produced
by the appellants were on or before the notification of the lands
in question as a municipal land and before the constitution of
the Municipal Committee, which happened on 20.07.2007.
The High Court has rejected all, but PW4/D produced by the
appellants on the ground that they were located distantly from
the acquired lands and rejected all the sale deeds produced
by the State on the same ground. A perusal of the sketch
reveals that exemplar PW-4/E and F produced by the appellant
is equidistant with PW4/D relied upon by the High Court. The
value in PW4/E and 4/F which are sale deeds on 29.05.2006
for lands extending to 25 kanals and 8 marlas and 4 marlas and
4 marlas respectively is in the range of Rs.95,00,000/- per acre
in 29.05.2006. PW4/E and 4/F are situated at Garhi Alawalpur.
j) Ninthly, the reasoning given by the High Court to only rely on
PW4/D is not satisfactory. Equally, the reasoning given by the
High Court that there was no evidence to prove that the acquired
lands in village Malpura vide notification dated 13.05.2010 was
comparable with the then geographical location, and other
factors of the lands of the appellant in these appeals is also
bereft of merit. Not only does the map indicate the proximity
of the lands, the Reference Court has rightly recorded that
the villages were adjoining and the acquisition was all part
of development of sectors in Dharuhera. The Besco (supra)
lands were acquired for Dharuhera industrial sector 15,16 and
[2025] 4 S.C.R. 2591

Ram Kishan (Since Deceased) Through His Lrs Etc. v.
State of Haryana & Ors.

17 whereas the lands of the appellants were for Dharuhera
institutional sector 5A.
Even though, in this case, the acquiring authority is the same
and there is broad similarity in the purpose of acquisition, we
may only do well to recall the telling observations of Chief
Justice S.M. Sikri speaking for the 7-judge bench in Nagpur
Improvement Trust & Anr v. Vithal Rao & Anr. (1973) 1
SCC 500:-
“29. Can classification be made on the basis of the
public purpose for the purpose of compensation
for which land is acquired? In other words can
the Legislature lay down different principles
of compensation for lands acquired say for a
hospital or a school or a Government building?
Can the Legislature say that for a hospital land
will be acquired at 50% of the market value, for a
school at 60% of the value and for a Government
building at 70% of the market value? All three
objects are public purposes and as far as the
owner is concerned it does not matter to him
whether it is one public purpose or the other.
Article 14 confers an individual right and in
order to justify a classification there should be
something which justifies a different treatment
to this individual right. It seems to us that
ordinarily a classification based on the public
purpose is not permissible under Article 14
for the purpose of determining compensation.
The position is different when the owner of the
land himself is the recipient of benefits from an
improvement scheme, and the benefit to him is
taken into consideration in fixing compensation.
Can classification be made on the basis of the
authority acquiring the land? In other words can
different principles of compensation be laid if the
land is acquired for or by an Improvement Trust
or Municipal Corporation or the Government? It
seems to us that the answer is in the negative
because as far as the owner is concerned it does
2592 [2025] 4 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

not matter to him whether the land is acquired
by one authority or the other.”
k) Lastly, on the facts of the case and the evidence on record, we
are convinced that reliance can safely be placed on the value
of the land arrived at in Besco (supra) to treat it as base value
for the appellants lands as was rightly done by the Reference
Court. All that will be required is to apply appropriate percentage
of de-escalation in accordance with the judgments of this Court
and also provide for appropriate reduction for change of land
use charges which the appellants would have incurred in case
they wanted to change the land use themselves in the event
of there being no acquisition.
34. Considering the factors mentioned above, we to start with take the
value of the land fixed in Besco (supra), namely, Rs.1,49,14,975
per acre as the base value. We may also notice that insofar as
the exemplar that was relied on in Besco (supra), Exh. PW4/3
therein, the sale deed executed on 13.08.2008 pertaining to the
village Malpura and involving 12 kanals and 2 marlas of land sold @
Rs.1,42,80,960/- per acre. We are indicating this to only demonstrate
that even before the notification as the municipal area, prices in
Dharuhera as evident from the exemplars cited by the appellants,
indicate a range of Rs.1,30,00,000/- per acre and Rs. 1,80,72,289/-
per acre though for varying extent of lands. Hence, even the test laid
down in Manoj (supra) as set out above is satisfied in the present
case and we are convinced that reliance can safely be placed on
the award in Besco (supra) to arrive at a base value.
35. Having arrived at the base value unlike the Reference Court, we
are inclined to apply de-escalation @ 12 p.a. for one year and for
the remaining five months an additional 6% on the base value. So
doing, we arrive at the figure of Rs.1,23,37,668/- per acre.
36. Approaching from a different angle, we find that the market value
arrived at is broadly the same. PW-4/E and PW-4/F pertain to sale
made in Garhi Alawalpur on 29.05.2006 for a per acre price of
Rs.95,00,000/-. If we apply 12% p.a. escalation on this price for 31
months from 29.05.2006 till 12.12.2008, (as was done by the High
Court for PW-4/D), we arrive at the figure of Rs.1,27,50,976/- per
acre. We have, however, taken the base figure as Rs.1,23,37,668/-
only.
[2025] 4 S.C.R. 2593

Ram Kishan (Since Deceased) Through His Lrs Etc. v.
State of Haryana & Ors.

37. One of the arguments of the State is that the land in Besco (supra)
had change of land use (CLU) permission and the owners therein
had paid CLU rates. We find merit in the contention of the State. To
provide adjustment for them, deducting Rs. 5 lakhs per acre on a
rough and ready estimate, we arrive at the figure of Rs.1,18,37,668/-
as the base value on which statutory benefits under Section 23(1-A),
23(2) & 28 of the LA Act in accordance with law has to be paid after
deducting the amounts already paid to the landowners.
38. In view of the above, we set aside the judgment of the High Court
dated 20.09.2022 in RFA No. 701/2022 and batch and partly allow
the appeals4. The appellants shall be paid a sum of Rs.1,18,37,668/-
per acre and statutory benefits under Section 23(1-A), 23(2) & 28
of the LA Act in accordance with law after deducting the amounts
already paid. Civil Appeal Nos. arising out of the Special Leave
Petitions5 will be covered by the Besco (supra) judgment, namely,
Civil Appeal No. 5376 of 2023. However, they will not be entitled to
interest for the period of delay in filing/delay in refiling after delayed
filing of the appeal(s). No order as to costs.

Result of the case: Appeals disposed of.

†
Headnotes prepared by: Mukund P Unny, Hony. Associate Editor
(Verified by: Shibani Ghosh, Adv.)

4 1. C.A. @ SLP(C) Nos. 5544-5545/2023 (2 Matters)
2. C.A. @ SLP(C) Nos. 4044/2023
3. C.A. @ SLP(C) Nos. 4051/2023
4. C.A. @ SLP(C) Nos. 4045/2023
5. C.A. @ SLP(C) Nos. 4058/2023
6. C.A. @ SLP(C) Nos. 4052-4056/2023 (5 Matters)
7. C.A. @ SLP(C) Nos. 4048/2023
8. C.A. @ SLP(C) Nos. 4298/2023
9. C.A. @ SLP(C) Nos. 9166/2023
10. C.A. @ SLP(C) Nos. 15189/2023
11. C.A. @ SLP(C) Nos. 15188/2023
5 1. C.A. @ SLP (C) Diary No. 53634/2023 (Total-6 Matters)
2. C.A. @ SLP (C) No. 14904/2024
3. C.A. @ SLP (C) No. 14905/2024
4. C.A. @ SLP (C) No. 14903/2024
5. C.A. @ SLP (C) No. 15529/2024
6. C.A. @ SLP (C) No. 14906/2024