Case: VED &amp; ANR Vs. STATE OF HARYANA &amp; ANR

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 (2019) 13 SCC 101 as modified by Order dated 08.02.2019 (2019) 13 SCC 123 in Civil Appeal Nos.264- 270 of 2019 and other connected matters (Wazir and Another vs. State of Haryana (2019) 13 SCC 101 ) i.e., after the decision of the High Court which is presently under appeal. 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. 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 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 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, 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. d) Even if, the valuation determined in Wazir and Another vs. State of Haryana (2019) 13 SCC 101 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: TABLE 6. On the other hand, it was submitted by the State that the valuation 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 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 Haryana (2018) SCC OnLine P&H 2871 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. State of Haryana (2018) SCC OnLine P&H 2871 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 (2019) 13 SCC 101 . 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 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 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 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 (2008) 14 SCC 745 , this Court dealt with the issue of grant of annual increase and expressed caution in 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 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 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, 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 increase was considered as one of the alternatives in Wazir and Another vs. State of Haryana (2019) 13 SCC 101 . 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. 2008) 14 SCC 745 is quite clear. 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 Haryana (2019) 13 SCC 101 must displace the valuation based on Sale Deed, which is normally the safest method.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 0

Explanation:
0[ds]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 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 ofand finally arrived at the market value for the villages in question.8. As a matter of fact, the assessment in Madan Pal III vs. State ofwhich 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. Therefore, theoretically, the market value arrived at by the High Court would be on the higher side.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 considered by the High Court in right perspective and the matter calls for no interference10. In General Manager, Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited vs. Rameshbhai Jivanbhai Patel and Another (2008) 14 SCC 745 ,  this Court dealt with the issue of grant of annual increase and expressed caution in 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 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 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, 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 increase was considered as one of the alternatives in Wazir and Another vs. State of. 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 ONGCis quite clear.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 ofmust displace the valuation based on Sale Deed, which is normally the safest method.