Holding

The Supreme Court held that the High Court’s assessment of market value, based on the sale deeds and the earlier case law, was correct and no enhancement of compensation is warranted.

Summary

The petitioners sought higher compensation for land acquired for the Phase‑V Industrial Model Township at Manesar, arguing that the market value determined by the High Court—based on sale deeds (Exhibits P‑13, P‑24, P‑25) and the valuation in Madan Pal III—was too low. The High Court had applied a 12% enhancement on a sale deed, then a 15% cut, arriving at Rs 48.46 million per acre for lands in Naurangpur and Lakhnoula and Rs 43.61 million per acre for other villages. The Supreme Court noted that the Madan Pal III valuation had been scaled down in Wazir & Another, meaning the High Court’s figure was, if anything, on the higher side. It examined the sale deeds and the methodology, found the High Court’s assessment proper, and held that no further enhancement was justified. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed without any order as to costs.

Issues considered

Whether the compensation awarded by the High Court for the acquired land should be enhanced.
Whether the valuation methodology—reliance on sale deeds and the annual increase method—is appropriate in the present case.
Whether the scaling down of the Madan Pal III valuation in Wazir & Another affects the present assessment.

Legislation cited

Land Acquisition Act, 1894s. 17(2)(c), s. 4, s. 6

Subjects

land acquisitioncompensation enhancementmarket value assessmentsale deed valuationindustrial model townshipstatutory benefitsSupreme Court

Judgment

[2021] 3 S.C.R. 351 351

VED & ANR. A
v.
STATE OF HARYANA & ANR.
(Civil Appeal No. 1158 of 2021)
APRIL 08, 2021 B
[UDAY UMESH LALIT AND VINEET SARAN, JJ.]
Land Acquisition Act, 1894: Enhancement of compensation
– Acquisition of land for setting up Industrial Model Township,
Phase V, Manesar for development of integrated complex for
C
industrial, commercial, recreational and other public utilities – Award
of compensation – Land-owners sought enhancement of
compensation – High Court considered Exhibit P13 concerning an
extent of land admeasuring 8 Kanals and 8 Marlas in the limits of
Village Lakhnoula and two Sale Deeds (Exhibits P24 and P25) – It
also considered the assessment of market value made by it in respect D
of acquisition pertaining to Phases II, III and IV in its decision in
Madan Pal III vs. State of Haryana and finally arrived at the market
value for the villages in question – The assessment in Madan Pal III
vs. State of Haryana which was the foundation of the decision of the
High Court in the instant case, was scaled down by this Court in
E
Wazir and Another vs. State of Haryana – Therefore, theoretically,
the market value arrived at by the High Court would be on the
higher side – The Sale Deeds i.e. Exhibits P-13, P-24 and P-25, the
extent of lands involved therein, their location and other features
were considered by the High Court in right perspective – No
interference called for. F
Dismissing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1. With regard to Phases II, III and IV of the
Industrial Model Township, Manesar, Gurgaon, acquisition
proceedings were initiated in respect of lands falling in villages
Naharpur Kasan, Kasan, Bas Kusla, Bas Haria, Dhana and G
Manesar by issuing Notifications dated 06.03.2002, 07.03.2002
and 26.02.2002 under Section 4 of the Act. The High Court vide
its decision dated 09.03.2018 in Madan Pal III vs. State of Haryana,
assessed the market value in respect of lands from villages
Naharpur Kasan, Kasan, Bas Kusla, Bas Haria, and Dhana H
351
352 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 3 S.C.R.

A (covered by Phases II and III) at Rs.41.40 lakhs per acre; while
the value for lands from village Manesar (covered by Phase IV)
was assessed at Rs.62.10 lakhs per acre. The appeals arising
therefrom were decided by this Court vide its Judgment dated
11.01.2019 as modified by Order dated 08.02.2019 in Civil Appeal
Nos.264-270 of 2019 and other connected matters (Wazir and
B
Another vs. State of Haryana) i.e., after the decision of the High
Court which is presently under appeal. The relevant operative
directions issued by this Court were:- In respect of lands under
acquisition from Villages Naharpur Kasan and Kasan the market
value shall be Rs.39,54,666 per acre. Additionally, all statutory
C benefits would be payable. In respect of lands under acquisition
from Villages Bas Kusla, Bas Haria and Dhana the market value
shall be Rs.29,77,333 per acre. Additionally, all statutory benefits
would be payable. In respect of lands from Village Manesar the
market value shall be Rs.59,31,999 lakhs per acre. Additionally,
all statutory benefits would be payable.” [Para 4][359-G-H; 360-
D
A-E]
2. In the instant case, the High Court considered Exhibit
P13 concerning an extent of land admeasuring 8 Kanals and 8
Marlas in the limits of Village Lakhnoula and two Sale Deeds in
respect of M/s Conway Developers Private Limited. (Exhibits
E P24 and P25). It also considered the assessment of market value
made by it in respect of acquisition pertaining to Phases II, III
and IV in its decision in Madan Pal III vs. State of Haryana and
finally arrived at the market value for the villages in question. As
a matter of fact, the assessment in Madan Pal III vs. State of
F Haryana which was the foundation of the decision of the High
Court in the present case, was scaled down by this Court in Wazir
and Another vs. State of Haryana. Therefore, theoretically, the
market value arrived at by the High Court would be on the higher
side. [Paras 7, 8][361-D-F]
G Madan Pal III v. State of Haryana (2018) SCC OnLine
P & H 2871 – referred to.
3. Exhibit P-20 Sale Deed was rightly rejected by the
Reference Court and the reasoning in that behalf is quite correct.
The other Sale Deeds i.e. Exhibits P-13, P-24 and P-25, the extent
H of lands involved therein, their location and other features were
VED & ANR. v. STATE OF HARYANA & ANR. 353

considered by the High Court in right perspective and the matter A
calls for no interference. [Para 9][361-G]
General Manager, Oil and Natural Gas Corporation
Limited v. Rameshbhai Jivanbhai Patel and Another
(2008) 14 SCC 745 : [2008] 11 SCR 92; Wazir and
Another v. State of Haryana (2019) 13 SCC 101 : B
[2019] 2 SCR 571 – referred to.
Case Law Reference
[2019] 2 SCR 571 referred to Para 4
[2008] 11 SCR 92 referred to Para 10 C
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1158 of
2021.
From the Judgment and Order dated 25.05.2018 of the High Court
of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in RFA No.1804 of 2014.
D
With
Civil Appeal Nos. 1159 of 2021, 1160-1197 of 2021, 1198-1210 of
2021, 1211-1218 of 2021, 1219-1227 of 2021, 1228 of 2021, 1229 of
2021, 1230 of 2021, 1231 of 2021, 1232-1233 of 2021, 1234-1240 of
2021, 1241-1242 of 2021, 1243-1248 of 2021, 1249-1250 of 2021, 1251
of 2021, 1252-1253 of 2021, 1254 of 2021, 1255-1272 of 2021, 1273- E
1278 of 2021, 1279-1280 of 2021, 1281 of 2021, 1282 of 2021, 1283-
1287 of 2021, 1288-1302 of 2021, 1303 of 2021, 1304 of 2021, 1305 of
2021, 1306 of 2021, 1307 of 2021, 1308 of 2021, 1309-1310 of 2021,
1311 of 2021, 1312 of 2021, 1313-1316 of 2021 and 1317 of 2021.
Narender Hooda, Rameshwar Singh Malik, Sushil Kr. Jain, Sr. F
Advs., S.P. Laler, B.K. Bagri, Abhishek Yadav, Devesh Kumar Tripathi,
Abhay Pratap, Ms. Manju Jetley, Siddharth Mittal, Rajendra Beniwal,
Prabhat Kumar, Ranbir Singh Yadav, Puran Mal Saini, Ms. Anzu K.
Varkey, S.P. Goutam, Anil Mittal, Jitesh Malik, Vibhuti Sushant Gupta,
Ram Naresh Yadav, Vikas Verma, Yadav Narender Singh, Puneet Jain, G
Ms. Anisha Jain, R.K. Verma, Nitin Jain, Ms. Sangita Tahbildar,
Dr. (Mrs.) Vipin Gupta, Rakesh Kumar Yadav, Rameshwar Prasad Goyal,
Gagan Gupta, Jasbir Singh Malik (for Ms. Usha Nandini V.), Dr. Shiva
Sharma, Daya Krishan Sharma, Vikas Verma, Vinod Goyal, Swetank

H
354 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 3 S.C.R.

A Shantanu, Pratap Shanker, Sanjiv Kr. Choudhary, Ms. Shilpi Shrivastav,
Ms. Vanshaja Shukla, Parmanand Yadav, Ahuja Pethia, Suresh Kr.
Kaushik, Daramvir Sharma, Ravi Panwar, B. Rajesh, Narender Kumar
Verma, Vibhuti Sushant Gupta, Advs. for the appearing parties.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
B UDAY UMESH LALIT, J.
1. Delay condoned. Permission to file Special Leave Petitions
granted. Leave to appeal granted in all matters. These appeals challenge
the Judgment and Order dated 25.05.2018 passed by the High Court 1;
based on which the individual appeals were disposed of.
C
2. The facts leading to the instant appeals, in brief, are as under:-
A) The proceedings for acquisition of lands were initiated vide
Notification dated 17.09.2004 issued under Section 4 read with Section
17 (2) (c) of the Act2 for the purpose of setting up Industrial Model
D Township, Phase-V, Manesar, Gurgaon for the development of an
integrated complex for industrial, commercial, recreational and other public
utilities.
B) The aforesaid Notification was followed by Declaration dated
27.10.2004 issued under Section 6 of the Act. The land covered by the
Declaration admeasured 956 acres 5 Kanals 18 Marlas, the details of
E
which as tabulated by the High Court were:-
C) By Awards dated 09.03.2006, the Land Acquisition Collector
assessed the market value of the lands at the rate of Rs.12.50 lakhs per
acre.
F

G

1
High Court of Punjab & Haryana At Chandigarh in RFA No.3381 of 2013 (HSIDC
now HSIIDC vs. Roshan Lal and Others) and other connected appeals.
H 2
The Land Acquisition Act, 1894
VED & ANR. v. STATE OF HARYANA & ANR. 355
[UDAY UMESH LALIT, J.]

D) While dealing with References preferred by the landholders, A
the Reference Court assessed the compensation at the rate of
Rs.50,43,315/- per acre in respect of the villages other than village
Manesar. Exhibit P-20 Sale Deed, relied upon by the landholders, was
considered by the Reference Court as under:-
“… Sale deed Ex.P20 pertains to village Naharpur Kasan and B
sale deed Ex.P24 pertains to village Naurangpur. I have gone
through the sale deed Ex.P20. In the considered opinion of this
Court the sale deed Ex.p20 does not depict the true market value
of the land. 96 kanals 13 marlas of land was sold for a total sale
consideration of Rs.13,62,00,000/- on 28.04.2004. The price per
acre comes to Rs.1.07 crores. A close scrutiny of the sale deed C
shows that the sale deed was not only with regard to land. There
is an assertion in the sale deed Ex.P20 that the first party had
good and marketable title to the industrial land and industrial building
which consisted of basement, ground floor, first floor and second
floor and was desirous of selling its rights, title, interest and liens D
in the industrial land and the building, structures and machinery
imbedded in the earth. Two schedules were also attached with
the sale deeds. Schedule-I gives the area of the land and Schedule-
II gives the constructed area, machinery etc which includes
canteen, kitchen, offices, 7 air handling units, air cooling units,
centrifugal chillers comprising of 400 tons each, LAN networking E
with extensive cabling, fire fighting structure etc. The price was,
therefore, for the entire plant and not for the land alone.”
E) The Acquiring Body, namely, HSIDC3 (now known as
HSIIDC4) as well as some landholders, being aggrieved, filed appeals in
the High Court. F

F) The High Court assessed the market value in respect of lands
falling in villages Naurangpur and Lakhnoula at Rs.48,46,000/- per acre;
and in respect of lands falling in villages Nawada Fatehpur, Naharpur
Kasan and Shikohpur the market value was assessed at Rs.43,61,400/-
per acre. It relied on Sale Deed Exhibit P-13, where the land was having G
frontage on the National Highway No.8 and, after granting 12%
enhancement it arrived at the figure of Rs.57,01,066/-, whereafter 15%
cut was applied to assess the market value at Rs.48,45,907 (rounded of
3
Haryana State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd.
4
Haryana State Industrial and Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd. H
356 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 3 S.C.R.

A to Rs.48,46,000/-) for the lands from villages Naurangpur and Lakhnoula
falling on the Highway. Since the lands from villages Shikohpur, Nawada
Fatehpur and Naharpur were away from the Highway, a further cut of
10% was adopted to arrive at the figure of Rs.43,61,400/- per acre for
those three villages. The High Court relied upon the assessment made
by it in Madan Pal III vs. State of Haryana5.
B
The relevant discussion was:-
“71. The other instance which can be kept into mind is Ex.P13
dated 27.08.2003 for 8 kanals 8 marlas (slightly over one acre)
which was executed in favour of M/s Reliance Industries Limited
C falling in the limits of Lakhnoula. The frontage was on the National
Highway No.8 of southern side itself as per description of the plot
and the sale deed in question is more than a year prior in point of
time. Keeping in view the growth factor and the potentiality of
the land in question, which has been discussed in the evidence
above that the IMT Manesar was being developed since the year
D 1994 in the vicinity and market value had already been assessed
@ Rs.20 lakhs per acre at that point of time and for the year 2002
the market value had been assessed @ `41.40 lakhs per acre for
adjoining village Naharpur Kasan, the pressure of building activity
was immense and pace of progress was rapid. The industries had
E been built up and exempted from acquisition which has been shown
in blue colour in the site plans. The distance to Manesar was only
2 Km away, where the main activities were taking place. Gurgaon
city was only 11 Kms situated on the other side and the overall
picture that can be drawn up was that there was certainable trend
of development from both sides towards the land in question. The
F site plan showed that the land was situated in more advantageous
location and the potentiality was immense.
72. Keeping in view these circumstances, the enhancement of
12% would be required on the sale deed Ex.P13 for which the
value of land which was Rs.50,90,238/-. The 12% benefit is
G ‘6,10,828/- and per acre value works out to Rs.57,01,066/- per
acre. As noticed Ex.P13 is of one acre of land and, therefore, the
smallness of the plot is not applicable in the facts and
circumstances, as one acre of land falling on the highway cannot
be said to be a small portion of land. The description also shows
5
H (2018) SCC OnLine P&H 2871
VED & ANR. v. STATE OF HARYANA & ANR. 357
[UDAY UMESH LALIT, J.]

that it had a 75.8 meter frontage on the highway as per the A
dimensions given and, accordingly, this Court is of the opinion that
a 15% cut for development would be appropriate in the facts and
circumstances, which is liable to be put to assess the market value,
which comes to Rs.8,15,159/-. Thus, reducing it from ‘57,01,066/
-, the market value works out to Rs.48,45,907/- per acre (rounded
B
off to Rs.48,46,000/- ) for the land falling in village Naurangpur
and village Lakhnoula,which are abutting the highway. The sale
exemplar being of higher value is, thus, being preferred over Ex.P7,
which is not falling on the Highway also.
73. In similar circumstances in ‘Chakas Vs. State of Punjab and
others’ 2011 (10) SCR 618, when the land was being acquired C
for setting up of industry and infrastructure, it was held that the
deduction of 50% of value towards the development charges was
not justified by the Reference Court. It was noticed that the land
was to be used for the industrial unit for which it was being acquired
and, therefore, 10% reduction was upheld. D
74. It is pertinent to notice here also that acquisition was for mixed
purpose and the Corporation is going to recover the costs as such
from the eventual allottees and, therefore, 15% reduction would
be justified in the facts and circumstances.
75. In ‘Kasturi Vs. State of Haryana’ 2003 (1) SCC 354, the E
20% cut was applied when 84.23 acres was acquired for
development of residential and commercial area in Bhiwani. The
argument that there should be no reduction was repelled by noticing
that the sale exemplar was of 3 kanals of land located on the main
road itself and resultantly the 20% cut was applied by the Single F
Judge and which had been upheld by the Division Bench was also
kept intact.
76. As noticed that the land which was acquired in the year 2002
is further away and closer to Manesar and away from Gurgaon,
the market value of which has been assessed @ Rs.41.40 per G
acre for village Naharpur Kasan and other villages of the compact
block in Madan Pal (III)5 (supra) on 09.03.2018. The earlier
development having taken place in and around village Manesar, it
being the hub of development and the IMT Manesar coming around
it on the first account way back in the year 1994, the value of land
H
358 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 3 S.C.R.

A of village Manesar and its surrounding were a relevant factor,
whereby the industry concerned on an earlier occasion, namely,
M/s Kohli Holding Pvt. Ltd. has been given a higher rate.
Therefore, though the present land might be falling closer to
Gurgaon as such, but away from the hub of development which is
taking place at Manesar cannot be equated with same
B
compensation, which has been given to M/s Kohli Holdings Pvt.
Ltd and the landowners of village Manesar. The acquisition is of
2½ years later and, therefore, keeping in view the said factors
also in mind, compensation for the land falling closer to the town
of Gurgaon would be liable to be granted which was granted in
C the earlier acquisition for the land further away and, therefore,
the assessment which has been made @ ‘48,45,907/- per acre
(rounding it off to Rs.48,46,000/- per acre) would be a much
appropriate market value.
77. For the land of other villages i.e. Nawada Fatehpur, Naharpur
D Kasan, Shikohpur an other 10% is liable to be reduced on the said
compensation assessed and, therefore, the market value is
assessed @ Rs.43,61,317/- per acre (rounding it off to
Rs.43,61,400/- per acre) for the said villages. From the evidence
of witnesses discussed above, it would be clear that village
Nawada Fatehpur and Shikohpur are at a distance from the
E highway. Nawada Fatehpur is at a distance of 4-5 Kms and
Shikohpur is situated where the land was acquired for CRPF and
also situated behind Naurangpur and not abutting the National
Highway.
78. The evidence which is on record upon which one can safely
F fall back, in the present set of cases is in the form of the 2 sale
deeds in M/s Conway Developers Ltd. (Exts. P24 & P25) in one
set of cases, which show that the market value was
Rs.57,60,000/- per acre in village Naurangpur. But as noticed above,
the location has not been specifically brought to the notice of this
G Court, though an application for additional evidence has been filed,
bringing on record the site-plans. One witness PW has deposed
that it is abutting the main Highway and appropriate cut has, thus,
to be fixed upon the same and especially since the land was
towards Gurgaon, as noticed and abutting the Highway. Thus, if a
15% cut is given on the same, on account of locational advantage,
H
VED & ANR. v. STATE OF HARYANA & ANR. 359
[UDAY UMESH LALIT, J.]

it would work out Rs.8,64,000/- and the market rate would be A
Rs.48,96,000/- per acre which is around the same price as is being
fixed @ Rs.48,46,000/- per acre.”
G) The operative part of the directions issued by the High Court
was: -
“79. Resultantly, the appeals of the HSIIDC are allowed, whereas B
the appeals of the landowners for further enhancement and cross-
objections for enhancement which are filed are dismissed and the
awards passed by the Reference Courts are, accordingly, modified.
(i) The market value of the land falling in two villages, namely,
Naurangpur and Lakhnoula is assessed @ Rs.48,46,000/- per C
acre alongwith all statutory benefits on 17.09.2004.
(ii) For the land falling in villages Nawada Fatehpur, Naharpur
Kasan and Shikohpur, the market value is fixed @
Rs.43,61,400/- per acre along with all statutory benefits on
17.09.2004. D
(iii) The directions of the Apex Court in the case of Pran Sukh6
(supra) will also be adhered to while disbursing the balance
amount of compensation.
(iv) Where appeals have been filed by the land owners which
E
were beyond period of limitation and applications have been
filed for condoning the delay with a condition that the land
owners will not be entitled for the interest during the said period,
the Executive Court shall ensure that the amounts are calculated
and disbursed, keeping in the view the said condition which
have been passed in the case of each individual land owner.” F
3. Being aggrieved, these appeals have been preferred by the
landholders. No appeal has been preferred by the State or the Acquiring
Body and thus, the scope of instant appeals is limited to consider whether
the landholders are entitled to any enhancement in compensation.
4. It must be stated at the outset that with regard to Phases II, III G
and IV of theIndustrial Model Township, Manesar, Gurgaon, acquisition
proceedings were initiated in respect of lands falling in villages Naharpur
Kasan, Kasan, Bas Kusla, Bas Haria, Dhana and Manesar by issuing

6
(2010) 11 SCC 175 H
360 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 3 S.C.R.

A Notifications dated 06.03.2002, 07.03.2002 and 26.02.2002 under Section
4 of the Act. The High Court vide its decision dated 09.03.2018 in Madan
Pal III vs. State of Haryana5, assessed the market value in respect of
lands from villages Naharpur Kasan, Kasan, Bas Kusla, Bas Haria, and
Dhana (covered by Phases II and III) at Rs.41.40 lakhs per acre; while
the value for lands from village Manesar (covered by Phase IV) was
B
assessed at Rs.62.10 lakhs per acre. The appeals arising therefrom were
decided by this Court vide its Judgment dated 11.01.20197 as modified
by Order dated 08.02.20198 in Civil Appeal Nos.264-270 of 2019 and
other connected matters (Wazir and Another vs. State of Haryana7)
i.e., after the decision of the High Court which is presently under appeal.
C The relevant operative directions issued by this Court were:-
“32. In the circumstances, we direct:
32.1 In respect of lands under acquisition from Villages Naharpur
Kasan and Kasan the market value shall be Rs.39,54,666 per
acre. Additionally, all statutory benefits would be payable.
D
32.2 In respect of lands under acquisition from Villages Bas Kusla,
Bas Haria and Dhana the market value shall be Rs.29,77,333 per
acre. Additionally, all statutory benefits would be payable.
32.3 In respect of lands from Village Manesar the market value
E shall be Rs.59,31,999 lakhs per acre. Additionally, all statutory
benefits would be payable.”
5. In these appeals, it was submitted on behalf of the landholders
that:-
a) The lands from villages Naurangpur, Lakhnoula and Shikohpur
F being abutting National Highway No.8 towards Delhi and closer to
Gurgaon than the lands from villages like Manesar, the lands from these
villages were on a better footing.
b) The lands had immense potentiality for residential and
commercial purposes, being surrounded by many reputed Industrial Units,
G Resorts, Hotels and Farm houses.
c) Certain Sale Deeds including Exhibit P.20 executed on
28.04.2004 showed value greater than what was assessed by the High
Court.
7
(2019) 13 SCC 101
H 8
(2019) 13 SCC 123
VED & ANR. v. STATE OF HARYANA & ANR. 361
[UDAY UMESH LALIT, J.]

d) Even if, the valuation determined in Wazir and Another vs. A
State of Haryana7 be taken as the base, after conferring cumulative
increase for a period of 2 ½ years, the appropriate valuation for lands
from village Naharpur Kasan would be:-

B

6. On the other hand, it was submitted by the State that the valuation
C
arrived at and the discussion by the High Court on the point did not call
for any interference.
7. In the instant case, the High Court considered Exhibit P13
concerning an extent of land admeasuring 8 Kanals and 8 Marlas in the
limits of Village Lakhnoula and two Sale Deeds in respect of M/s Conway
D
Developers Private Limited. (Exhibits P24 and P25). It also considered
the assessment of market value made by it in respect of acquisition
pertaining to Phases II, III and IV in its decision in Madan Pal III vs.
State of Haryana5 and finally arrived at the market value for the villages
in question.
8. As a matter of fact, the assessment in Madan Pal III vs. E
State of Haryana5 which was the foundation of the decision of the High
Court in the present case, was scaled down by this Court in Wazir and
Another vs. State of Haryana7. Therefore, theoretically, the market
value arrived at by the High Court would be on the higher side.
9. Even then we proceed to consider the evidence placed on record F
to see if the landholders are right in seeking enhancement.
Exhibit P-20 Sale Deed was rightly rejected by the Reference
Court and the reasoning in that behalf, as quoted hereinabove is quite
correct. The other Sale Deeds i.e. Exhibits P-13, P-24 and P-25, the
extent of lands involved therein, their location and other features were G
considered by the High Court in right perspective and the matter calls
for no interference.
That leaves us to consider whether by adopting the method of
annual increase over the values determined in connection with acquisition
H
362 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 3 S.C.R.

A for Phases II, III and IV any advantage can still be conferred upon the
landholders.
10. In General Manager, Oil and Natural Gas Corporation
Limited vs. Rameshbhai Jivanbhai Patel and Another 9, this Court
dealt with the issue of grant of annual increase and expressed caution in
B following words.:-
“15. Normally, recourse is taken to the mode of determining the
market value by providing appropriate escalation over the proved
market value of nearby lands in previous years (as evidenced by
sale transactions or acquisitions), where there is no evidence of
C any contemporaneous sale transactions or acquisitions of
comparable lands in the neighbourhood. The said method is
reasonably safe where the relied-on sale transactions/acquisitions
precede the subject acquisition by only a few years, that is, up to
four to five years. Beyond that it may be unsafe, even if it relates
to a neighbouring land. What may be a reliable standard if the gap
D is of only a few years, may become unsafe and unreliable standard
where the gap is larger. For example, for determining the market
value of a land acquired in 1992, adopting the annual increase
method with reference to a sale or acquisition in 1970 or 1980
may have many pitfalls. This is because, over the course of years,
E the “rate” of annual increase may itself undergo drastic change
apart from the likelihood of occurrence of varying periods of
stagnation in prices or sudden spurts in prices affecting the very
standard of increase.”
11. It is true that the process of determining the value by annual
F increase was considered as one of the alternatives in Wazir and Another
vs. State of Haryana7. But in that case, three methods including one
relating to cumulative annual increase were considered and that method
which led to the highest valuation was adopted. But the law laid down in
ONGC Ltd.9 is quite clear.

G In case we go by the method of cumulative annual increase it
would mean that cumulative increase over the valuation in Wazir and
Another vs. State of Haryana7 must displace the valuation based on
Sale Deed, which is normally the safest method.

9
H (2008) 14 SCC 745
VED & ANR. v. STATE OF HARYANA & ANR. 363
[UDAY UMESH LALIT, J.]

12. In the circumstances, the decision of the High Court which is A
presently under appeal calls for no interference and these appeals are
dismissed without any order as to costs.

Devika Gujral Appeals dismissed.
B

C

D

E

F

G

H