/2023 INSC 0088/
REPORTABLE
                            
   IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
   CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
    CIVIL APPEAL NO.  1173     OF 2023
   (Arising out of SLP (Civil) No.3585 of 2022)
Ravinder Kumar Goel                              .…Appellant(s)
Versus
The State of Haryana & Ors.               ….  Respondent(s)
With
 
C.A.NO. 1176 OF  2023 @  of SLP (C) No.4837 of 2022)
C.A.NO. 1178 OF 2023 @  of SLP (C) No.7772 of 2022)
C.A.NO. 1177 OF 2023 @  of SLP (C) No.7455 of 2022)
C.A.NOS. 1182­1210   OF 2023@  of SLP(C) Nos.3446­
3474/2023 @ D.No.11863 of 
2022)
C.A.NOS. 1179­1181   OF 2023@  of SLP (C) Nos.10577­ 
79/2022)
C.A.NOS. 1174­1175  OF 2023 @  of SLP (C) Nos.9898­
99/2022)
1

C.A.NOS.  1217­1220 OF 2023 @  of SLP (C) Nos.622­
625/2023)
C.A.NOS.1211­1216 OF 2023@  of SLP (C) Nos.3434­
3439/2023 @ D.No.14744 of 
2022)
C.A.NOS.1221­1222 OF 2023@  of SLP(C) Nos.2450­
2451/2023)
J U D G M E N T
A.S. Bopanna,J.
        
1. The irony in all these cases is that the appellants
are   land   losers   who   have   been   divested   from   their   land
either   fully   or   in   part   to   construct   an   Express   Highway
over such land for the benefit of others to travel fast but
the   process   to   compensate   them   with   a   just   and   fair
quantum   of   money   instead   of   being   on   the   fast   track,
has   been   tardy.     It   is   a   couple   of   years   short   of   two
decades from the date of the preliminary notification and
the   appellants   are   still   litigating   to   receive   what   is
rightfully due to them.
2

2. These   appeals   even   otherwise   have   a   chequered
history.     The   appellants   are   before   this   Court   for   the
second   time.     The   lands   which   were   owned   by   the
appellants formed  a part of  the  lands that  were notified
under   Section   4   read   with   Section   17   (2)   of   the   Land
Acquisition   Act,   1894   (for   short   ‘Act,   1894’)   by   the
Haryana   Government   Industries   Department.     The
preliminary   notification   was   issued   on   11.01.2005   and
the   declaration   under   Section   6   of   Act,   1894   was   made
on   31.05.2005.     The   purpose   for   which   the   lands   were
acquired   is   for   the   construction   of   Express   Highway
Phase  VII   connecting  National  Highway  No.1,  10,  8 and
2 in village Sultanpur, Sub­Tehsil Farukh Nagar, Tehsil,
and District Gurugram.  The total extent of land notified
for   the   project   was   798   Kanals   and   2   Marlas   of   which,
the appellants’ lands are also included.
3. The   award   was   passed   by   the   District   Revenue
Officer­cum­Land   Acquisition   Collector   (for   short   ‘LAO’),
Gurgaon   on   10.05.2006.   The   market   value   was   fixed   at
Rs.12,50,000/­ per acre for all kinds of lands as per the
rates   of   the   lands   supplied   by   the   Collector,   Gurugram
3

through   the   letter   dated   03.11.2005.     The   land   losers
including   the   appellants   had   sought   reference   under
Section   18   of   Act,   1894.     The   Reference   Court,   through
its   judgment   dated   27.02.2012,   after   consideration   had
enhanced   the   market   value   to   Rs.43,17,841/­   per   acre.
The   High   Court   had   an   occasion   to   consider   the
correctness   of   the   same   in   appeals   filed   by   both   the
parties before it.  The High Court, on consideration, had
through   its   judgment   dated   05.02.2016   enhanced   the
market value to Rs.62,11,700/­ per acre.
4. The land losers as also the State of Haryana were
before this Court assailing the common judgment dated
05.02.2016   passed   by   the   High   Court.     This   Court
through its judgment dated 25.01.2018 in the case titled
as   Surender   Singh   Vs.   State   of   Haryana   &   Ors.
(2018)   3   SCC   278,   remanded   all   the   cases   to   the
Reference   Court   and   the   parties   were   permitted   to   lead
further   evidence   whereupon   the   Reference   Court   was
required to take a fresh decision in the matter.
5. Accordingly,   the   parties   had   tendered   evidence
and   exhibited   the   sale   instances   as   exemplars.   The
4

Reference   Court   on   re­appreciation   of   the   evidence   and
materials   available   on   record   has   through   its   judgment
and   award   dated   10.01.2020,   determined   the   market
value   of   the   acquired   lands   at   Rs.22,00,754/­   per   acre.
The parties being aggrieved, were before the High Court.
The   Haryana   State   Industrial   and   Infrastructure
Development Corporation Ltd. & Ors. (for short ‘HSIIDC’)
had   assailed   the   quantum   of   market   value   determined
as   excessive,   while   the   land   losers   had   sought   further
enhancement   of   the   market   value.     The   High   Court,
through   its   common   judgment   dated   07.10.2021   has
modified   the   judgment   of   the   Reference   Court   and
reduced   the   market   value   to   Rs.14,52,010/­   per   acre.
The   land   losers   being   aggrieved   by   the   same   are   before
this Court in these appeals seeking enhancement of the
market value in respect of the acquired lands.
6. In   the   above   background,   we   have   heard   all   the
learned   counsel   for   the   appellants   as   also   the   learned
counsel   for   the   respondent­HSIIDC   and   perused   the
appeal papers.
5

7. The   gist   of   the   contention   on   behalf   of   the   land
losers   is   that   the   lands   which   are   the   subject   matter   of
these appeals are situated in Sultanpur which is within
the   urban   agglomeration.   As   such,   though   the   lands
were   depicted   as   agricultural   lands,   in   fact,   the   said
lands   have   non­agricultural   potential,   more   particularly
the   lands   are   urbanized   lands   being   located   within   the
urban   area.     In   that   view,   it   is   contended   that   the
market   value   cannot   be   determined   by   either
considering the land as agricultural land or by applying
the   yardstick   which   is   applicable   to   large   tracts   of
agricultural   land.     It   is   contended   that   though   the
composite   notification   to   acquire   the   lands   consists   of
798   Kanals   2   Marlas   of   land,   insofar   as   the   appellants
are   concerned,   they   are   land   owners   of   small   extent   of
lands which were to be used as urban land for purposes
other   than   agriculture,   and   therefore,   the   market   value
as   determined   by   the   High   Court   on   applying   the   floor
rates fixed by the Government, would not be justified.  It
is   their   further   contention   that   on   the   matter   being
remanded   to   the   Reference   Court,   evidence   had   been
6

adduced   wherein   sale   exemplars   were   relied   on.     It   is
contended   that   the   Reference   Court   having   taken   into
consideration all aspects of the matter had in fact rightly
relied   on   the   sale   deed   dated   07.12.2004   which   was
marked   as   Ex.PX.     Having   done   so,   the   only   error
committed   by   the   Reference   Court   is   to   deduct   35   per
cent   of   the   value   towards   development   charges
inasmuch   as   in   the   instant   case,   the   question   of
deducting development charges would not be justified as
the   entire   acquired   land   has   been   utilized   for   the
purpose   of   constructing   roads.     Hence   it   is   contended
that   the   entire   amount,   being   the   sale   consideration   in
the   said   sale   deed   dated   07.12.2004   is   to   be   reckoned
and   the   same   be   determined   as   the   market   value   to
quantify the compensation.
8. The gist of the contention put forth by the learned
counsel   for   the   beneficiary   of   the   acquisition,   namely
HSIIDC   is   that   the   Reference   Court   was   not   justified   in
placing   reliance   on   the   document   at   Ex.PX,   dated
07.12.2004.  The said document related to the purchase
of a  small  extent  as compared  to  the vast  extent  of 798
7

Kanals   2   Marlas   of   land   which   was   acquired.     Hence   it
does not represent the true value of the acquired lands.
It   is   the   further   contention   that   on   the   other   hand,   the
HSIIDC   had   relied   on,   as   many   as   nine   sale   exemplars
between the period 23.07.2004 and 25.11.2005 wherein
the larger extent of agricultural land had been sold and
the value per acre in all the said instances is lesser than
the   floor   rate   which   had   been   taken   into   consideration.
Though   the   LAO   had   determined   the   market   value   at
Rs.12,50,000/­   based   on   the   same,   the   High   Court
taking   into   consideration   that   there   was   time   gap,   has
adopted   the   same   and   added   the   escalation   for   the
period   between   the   date   of   the   circular   indicating   the
floor   rates   and   the   date   of   the   notification.     It   is
contended   that   the   High   Court   having   thus   assigned
appropriate   reasons   has   determined   the   market   value
and   awarded   just   compensation.   Therefore,   the
judgment   does   not   call   for   interference,   is   the
submission.
9. In   the   light   of   the   rival   contentions,   keeping   in
view   that   the   only   question   herein   is   to   determine   the
8

appropriate   market   value   for   the   acquired   lands,   the
well­settled   yardsticks   are   to   be   kept   in   view   and   a
decision is to be taken as to whether the High Court was
justified  in  interfering  with  the  manner  of  consideration
made by the Reference Court and as to whether the High
Court   was   correct   in   adopting   the   amount   as   indicated
in the circular providing for the floor rates for fixing the
market value in the teeth of the other documents which
were available on record.   In this regard, it is noted that
the   LAO   at   the   first   instance   while   passing   the   award
dated   10.05.2006   has   in   fact,   kept   in   view   the   circular
dated   03.11.2005   issued   by   the   Collector   providing   for
the   floor   rates   at   Rs.12,50,000/­   per   acre   and   has,
accordingly, determined the compensation.   As narrated
earlier,   when   the   parties   were   before   this   Court   in   the
first   round   of   litigation   in   the   case   titled   Surender
Singh Vs. State of Haryana & Ors.  (supra), this Court
having   taken   note   of   the   governing   factors   as   to   the
determination of market value had remanded the matter
for   fresh   consideration   though   the   circular   relating   to
the   floor   rates   was   also   available   to   the   benefit   of   this
9

Court to be noticed and applied if need be.  In that view,
in   the   light   of   the   said   circular,   without   relying   on   the
same,   this   Court   had   directed   that   the   evidence   be
tendered by the parties before the Reference Court so as
to make such evidence the basis for fresh determination
to   be   made.   Despite   the   same,   the   High   Court   in   the
present   round   has   merely   relied   on   the   circular
providing for the floor rates despite other evidence being
available on record. Such determination is therefore not
justified.     From   the   records,   it   is   pointed   out   that   as
contended   on   behalf   of   the   parties,   the   sale   exemplars
were brought on record to aid the Court to determine the
market value, the consideration of which was required to
be made to arrive at an appropriate market value.
10. While  adverting   to this aspect of  the  matter  what
is   necessary   to   be   noted   is   that   the   Reference   Court
before   appreciating   the   evidence,   has   kept   in   view   the
parameters laid down  by  this Court while considering  a
reference   for   the   purpose   of   determining   the   market
value   of   the   acquired   lands   to   arrive   at   the   just
compensation.     Since   the   sale   exemplars   had   been
10

placed by the rival parties before the Reference Court, in
order to take the same into consideration, the Reference
Court has in fact taken note of the decision of this Court
in   State   of   Gujarat   vs.   Kakhot   SinghJi   VajesinghJi
Vaghela   (1968) 3 SCR 692.   This Court had enunciated
the   principle   that   the   price   agreed   between   a   willing
seller and a willing purchaser   would be the price which
is   generally   prevailing   in   the   market   in   respect   of   the
lands having similar advantages which can be the basis
to determine the market value of acquired lands if such
sale instances are brought on record.  
11. Further,   the   Reference   Court   had   also   kept   in
view   the   decision   of   this   Court   in   Atma   Singh   (Dead)
through Lrs. and Ors. vs. State of Haryana and Anr.
(2008)   2   SCC   568   wherein   it   is   held   that   the   sale
instances of small pieces of land cannot be ignored while
determining  the compensation for  a large extent of land
acquired.  The rule of deduction on development charges
would   not   be   uniformly   applicable   was   also   taken   into
consideration.     It   is   in   that   light,   the   Reference   Court
11

has   placed   reliance   on   the   document   at   Ex.PX   dated
07.12.2004   relied   upon   by   the   land   losers.     Under   the
said   document,   an   extent   of   5   Marlas   was   sold   in
Sultanpur   i.e.   the   area   which   is   the   subject   matter   of
these   appeals,   for   the   sale   consideration   of
Rs.1,05,000/­   which   would   amount   to   Rs.33,60,000/­
per   acre.     On   reckoning   the   said   value   of   land,   the
Reference   Court   deducted   35   per   cent   of   the   same
towards   development   charges   and   thereafter   added   the
escalation for   35 days being  the difference   of the period
between   the   date   of   the   said   sale   deed   and   the   date   of
the preliminary notification.   It is on the said basis that
the market value of Rs. 22,00,754/­ per acre was arrived
at by the Reference Court.
12.   From   the   judgment   of   the   Reference   Court   it   is
noted that the sale exemplars which were relied upon by
the   respondent­HSIIDC   at   Ex.R5/R12,   Ex.R6,   Ex.R9,
Ex.R13   to   Ex.R16   were   discarded   since   they   depict   the
market value of the land which is lower than the amount
awarded   by   the   Collector.     To   that   extent,   the   reason
assigned   by   the   Reference   Court   is   not   justified.     The
12

documents would have to be taken into consideration, to
decide   as   to   whether   the   lands   are   comparable   and,   on
the   determination,   if   the   conclusion   is   that   they   are
comparable but the market value depicted is lesser than
what   is   awarded   by   the   SLAO   and   if   there   is   no   other
document to indicate a higher market value, it would be
open for the Reference Court to confirm the award of the
LAO being more beneficial to the land losers. 
13. Therefore,   since   we   have   already   indicated   that
the High Court was not justified in merely relying on the
circular   fixing   the   floor   rates   when   other   evidence   was
available on the record pursuant to the remand made, it
is   necessary   for   us   to   take   note   as   to   whether   the
Reference   Court   had   committed   an   error   in   not   relying
on   the   sale   exemplars   produced   by   the   respondents
without analysing the comparability.  The position of law
is   well   settled   that   when   large   extent   of   lands   are
acquired   and   if   the   sale   exemplar,   also   for   the   large
extent is available on record it would be safer to rely on
the same if they are comparable transactions.  However,
as   already   noted   above,   this   Court   in   Atma   Singh
13

(supra)   has   also   held   that   the   sale   instances   of   smaller
extents   cannot   be   ignored.     Further,   this   Court   has
reiterated   in   many   cases   that   the   sale   exemplars   for
smaller extent can be relied upon subject to appropriate
deduction being provided towards development charges.
 
14. In   the   instant   case,   though   the   acquisition
Notification   dated   11.01.2005   was   issued   in   respect   of
the   large   extent   of   lands   measuring   798   Kanals   and   2
Marlas,     the   extent   of   lands   which   were   owned   by
majority   of   land   losers   is   a   small   extent.   In   fact,   the
details   indicated   in   the   judgment   dated   10.01.2020
passed by  the Reference Court has referred to about 69
appellants   who   were   before   it.     Therefore,   the   extent   to
which each of the appellants is claiming compensation is
a smaller extent.   In that background, if the documents
relied on by the respondents at Ex.R5 to R16 are noted,
the largest extent sold is under Ex.R16 being 32 Kanals
and   16   Marlas,   while   the   least   being   under   Ex.R8
measuring 3 Kanals and 8 Marlas.   We have referred to
this aspect of the matter to indicate that while approving
the   procedure   for   placing   reliance   on   the   sale   deeds   of
14

earlier   sale   transactions   as   exemplars,   this   Court
starting   from   the   case   of   Kakhot   SinghJi   Vajesinghji
Vaghela   (supra)   and   several   other   cases   has
emphasized that the basis for the same is that the value
under   such   exemplars   would   represent   the   sale
consideration agreed upon between a willing seller and a
willing purchaser and therefore would represent the true
market value. 
15. If   the   above­referred   concept   is   kept   in
perspective, one cannot loose sight of the fact that when
large   extent   of   agricultural   land   is   sold   under   a
document   and   if   the   land   is   to   be   used   for   agricultural
purpose, the price agreed thereto would be based on the
nature of the land and the purpose for which it is put to
use.  In cases, where the large extent of agricultural land
belonging   to   a   single   owner   is   acquired,   it   would   no
doubt   be   safe   to   rely   on   such   sale   exemplars   of   large
extents,   more   particularly,   in   circumstances   where   the
land which is classified as agricultural land is also used
for   agricultural   purposes.     In   such   circumstances,   to
15

arrive   at   the   market   value   depending   on   the   nature   of
the   cultivation,   the   capitalisation   method   by   applying
the  multiplier  to  the  crop  pattern  and  price derived can
be   adopted   and   the   market   value   be   determined   or
determine   the   market   value   based   on   such   sale   deeds
which are comparable exemplars.  
16. However, the difficulty arises when a person holds
a   smaller   extent   of   land   which   is   classified   as
agricultural   land   but   would   have   lost   its   character   due
to   non­cultivation   and   urbanization   when   such   land   is
more   eminent   and   fit   to   be   used   for   non­agricultural
purposes.   It is in that circumstance, such land though
classified as agricultural will have to be treated as a land
having   non­agricultural   potential   more   particularly   for
urban use.  In that light, in appropriate cases depending
on   the   location   and   the   extent   of   land   held   by   each   of
the land losers who is a part of the same acquisition, is
required to be kept in view, while applying the yardstick
to   reckon   the   appropriate   exemplar   and   arrive   at   the
ultimate   conclusion.   Therefore,   there   can   be   no   strait
jacket   formula   that   when   the   sale   deeds   for   the   sale   of
16

large   extent   are   available   and   large   extent   of   lands   are
acquired that alone should be reckoned as the exemplar.
What   is   material   is   its   comparability,   which   would
depend on case to case basis and that is for the Court to
analyze based on the evidence available on record.
17. If   the   above­noted   criteria   is   kept   in   perspective,
in   the   instant   case   as   already   noted   and   also
demonstrated to us at the time of hearing with reference
to   the   final   development   plan   of   Gurgaon­Manesar
Urban Complex 2031 AD,   the lands in issue are within
the   boundaries   of   the   Municipal   Corporation.   Further,
the   very   award   dated   10.05.2006   passed   by   the   LAO
records   that   no   crops   are   standing   on   the   land.
Therefore,   in   that   circumstance   when   smaller   extent   of
land   is   available,   the   same   would   be   used   for   urban
development   and   not   for   agricultural   purpose.   Hence
relying on Ex. R5 to R16 which are sale deeds of a large
extent of agricultural land, would not be justified unless
there   was   further   evidence   brought   on   record   to
demonstrate that the nature of the lands sold under the
said sale deeds and the lands notified are comparable to
17

each other. In that view, though the reason assigned by
the   Reference   Court   is   not   appropriate   on   that   aspect,
the   ultimate   conclusion   to   eschew   the   said   documents
will stand justified.
18. If that be the position, from the documents which
were relied upon by the appellants­land losers, the most
appropriate   document   to   be   relied   upon   was   Ex.PX
dated 07.12.2004  since  it  was  earlier  to   the  notification
dated 11.01.2005  under  Section  4,  read  with   17  of  Act,
1894   and   in   close   proximity   thereto,   which   has   been
rightly done by the Reference Court.  Since small extents
of   land   belonging   to   the   land   losers,   having   non­
agricultural   potential   in   an   urban   area   was   notified   for
acquisition,   the   said   sale   exemplar   dated   07.12.2004
can   be   considered   as   comparable.   The   Reference   Court
was,   therefore,   justified   in   reckoning   the   same.     Since
the   two   dates   are   in   close   proximity,   in   our   opinion,
further   addition  of the escalation value  for  35 days  was
not   justified.     The   escalation   of   that   nature   is   normally
to   be   taken   if   there   are   no   documents   within   close
proximity   to   the   date   of   notification   and   a   document   of
18

the larger time gap is the only available document to be
taken   into   consideration,   in   which   case,   the   escalation
for a longer time gap is required to be given.
19.    Having arrived at the above conclusion, the next
aspect which engages our attention is with regard to the
appropriate deduction towards development charges and
as   to   whether   the   Reference   Court   was   justified   in
deducting 35 per cent of the value from the market value
arrived at based on the document at Ex.PX.  The learned
counsel   for   the   appellants   contend   that   the   acquisition
in the instant case is for construction of the road and as
such, the deduction was not necessary to be made.  The
decision in   C.R. Nagaraja Shetty (2) vs. Special Land
Acquisition   Officer   and   Estate   Officer   and   Anr.
(2009) 11 SCC 75 is relied on to contend that in the said
case   where   the   land   was   acquired   for   widening   the
national   highway,   this   Court   has   held   that   there   is   no
question   of   any   further   development,   and   as   such   the
deduction on account of development charges will not be
justified.     The   decision   in   Piyara   Singh   &   Anr.   vs.
19

State   of   Haryana   &   Ors.   Etc.   (2017)   2   SCALE   323,
also a decision where this Court held that the deduction
of   40   per   cent   as   made   in   the   said   case   when   the   land
acquired was roughly 1 kanal to 1 acre per person which
ultimately   totals up to 305 acres which was acquired, is
not justified is relied upon.  
20. Having   bestowed   our   attention   to   that   aspect   of
the   matter,   we   are   of   the   opinion   that   in   the   instant
case,   the   said   decisions   relied   upon   by   learned   counsel
for   the   appellants   would   not   be   of   any   assistance   to
them  since they   are  rendered  entirely  based on the fact
situation   arising   therein.     In   fact,   this   Court   in   JAG
Mahender   &   Anr.   Vs.   State   of   Haryana   &   Ors.
through   the   order   dated   21.09.2017   in   Civil   Appeal
No.15702/2017 arising out of SLP (C) No.16063 of 2016
and connected appeals had taken into consideration the
entire   perspective   relating   to   the   deduction   of
development   charges   with   reference   to   the   earlier
decisions of this Court in   Haryana State Agricultural
Market   Board   &   Anr.   vs.   Krishan   Kumar   &   Ors.
20

(2011)   15   SCC   297   and   in   Sabhia   Mohammed   Yusuf
Abdul Hamid Mulla (Dead) by Lrs. & Ors. vs. Special
Land   Acquisition   Officer   &   Ors.   (2012)   7   SCC   595
wherein on taking note of the nature of development that
would   be   required   in   the   acquired   lands   and   also   the
general   rule   of   deduction   of   1/3 rd
  of   the   market   value
towards development cost except in cases where there is
no   development   required,   this   Court   had   ultimately
arrived   at   the   conclusion   that   deduction   of   25   per   cent
would be justified.  
21. In that background, in the instant facts, the land
acquired   is   for   the   construction   of   a   new   Expressway
which would require not just laying of the roads but also
providing   several   amenities   through   the   highway   and
also   creation   of   service   roads,   flyovers,   underpass   to
townships across such highway.   Land  is also to  be left
as a divider to bifurcate the two­way roads. Therefore, it
would   not   be   justified   in   saying   that   no   development
cost at all would be incurred.   Hence, taking all aspects
into   consideration   and   also   taking   into   consideration
21

that the sale exemplar for a smaller extent is being relied
on   for   the   reasons   noted   above,   in   the   facts   and
circumstance   arising   herein,   it   would   be   appropriate   to
reckon   the   deduction   towards   development   cost   at   25
per cent of the value taken into consideration under the
document Ex. PX dated 07.12.2004.  Therefore, from the
amount   of  Rs.33,60,000/­ which  is  the  value  therein,  a
sum   of   Rs.8,40,000/­   being   25   per   cent   is   to   be
deducted.     Hence  the   market   value  to   be  determined   in
the   present   case   would   be   Rs.25,20,000/­   per   acre,
which   shall   be   payable   with   all   statutory   benefits   as
compensation for the lands acquired.  
22.  Before we part with this matter, one other aspect
which   was   brought   to   our   notice   is   that   in   the   first
round   of   the   case,   a   higher   rate   of   compensation   was
determined   and   before   the   judgment   was   set   aside   and
remanded, in some of the cases the execution was levied
and the amount was paid to the land losers.   In view of
the determination of the compensation at a lower rate in
the  present round  of  proceedings, the  excess  amount  is
being   recovered   by   the   respondents.     The   learned
22

counsel   for   the   appellants   contend   that   if   this   Court
determines   the   market   value   at   a   lesser   rate   than   what
has   been   paid   to   some   of   the   appellants,   such   of   those
land losers who have received the amount, be protected
against   recovery.     Learned   counsel   for   the   respondents
would   vehemently   oppose   such   a   request.     Having
considered this aspect of the matter, we are clear in our
mind   that   it   would   not   be   possible   for   this   Court   to
create two sets of land losers who are otherwise similarly
placed,   in   respect   of   the   same   acquisition   process   after
having determined the market value at a particular rate
which is applicable to all of them.  
23. Therefore,   it   is   needless   to   mention   that   if   any
excess   amount   has   been   received   by   any   of   the   land
losers   than   the   extent   of   the   compensation   determined
herein, the excess amount, in any event, is recoverable.
We   cannot   also   lose   sight   of   the   fact   that   such   a
situation   has   arisen   due   to   the   earlier   orders   of   the
Court determining the compensation. Though it is not a
mistake of the Court, it has led to the present situation
due   to   the   act   of   the   Court.   It   would   therefore   be
23

appropriate   to   invoke   the   principle   of   ‘ actus   curiae
neminem   gravabit ’   so   that   both   parties   are   not
prejudiced   to   the   extent   possible.   Taking   note   that   the
amount   which   has   been   received   will   be   invested   or
utilised, to enable repayment after making arrangement,
we direct that the balance to be refunded, shall be paid
back   in   three   half­yearly   instalments,   free   of   interest.
However,   if   the   amount   is  not   refunded  within  the   time
period as provided above, the same shall thereafter carry
interest at 9% p.a. and the respondent­HSIIDC would be
entitled to recover the same, including the right to make
recovery as arrears of land revenue. 
24. In the result, we pass the following order;
(i) The   judgment   dated   07.10.2021   passed   by
the   High   Court   of   Punjab   and   Haryana   at
Chandigarh   in   RFA   No.421/2021,   RFA
No.848/2021   and   connected   appeals,
impugned herein, is set aside.
(ii) The   judgment   dated   10.01.2020   passed   by
the   Additional   District   Judge,   Gurugram
24

(Reference Court) in LAC Case No. 1426 and
connected   references   is   restored   and
modified.
(iii) In modification, it is ordered that the market
value of the acquired land is Rs.25,20,000/­
per   acre.   The   same   shall   be   payable   with
statutory   benefits   and   the   costs   incurred
throughout by the appellants. 
(iv) The appeals are accordingly, allowed in part.
 
(v) Pending   applications,   if   any,   stand   disposed
of.
……………………….J.
                                              (A.S. BOPANNA)
……………………….J.
                                            (HIMA KOHLI)
New Delhi;
February 15, 2023
25