New Okhla Industrial Development Authority vs Harnand Singh (Deceased) through LRs & Ors.

Held: The Court can use the principle of guesstimation in reasonably estimating the value of land in the absence of direct evidence, the exercise ought not to be purely hypothetical – Instead, the Court must embrace a holistic view and consider all relevant factors and existing evidence, even if not directly comparable, to arrive at a fair determination of compensation – Broadly, such relevant factors can be divided into three categories; Characteristics of the land; Future potentiality of the land; Factors denoting market sentiments – In the instant case, the evidence led by parties provides several relevant factors – For instance, while the sale deed produced by the landowners cannot directly be relied upon for determining the price of the land, given its relative proximity, it nonetheless establishes its potentiality in the form of possible use towards residential purposes – Likewise, the lease deeds further underscore the commercial potentiality of land in the adjoining vicinity – As highlighted by the landowners, the land under acquisition lies near prominent amenities and landmarks such as a prominent school, a large Golf Course, and a prominent tourist attraction - the Film City – Apart from that, it is also in proximity to the DSC Shade, Okhla Barrage Highway and a School of Business Management – Additionally, the acquired land is enveloped by developed colonies and markets on all three sides – The acquired land benefits from convenient access to key landmarks in Delhi, highlighting its strategic location vis-à-vis its potentiality and future multiplicity of its market value – Taken together, all these facts and evidence lead to the reasonable inference that the subject land had significant potential for future commercial development at the time of issuance of the notification under Section 4 – This Court is inclined to estimate that the value of the subject land was appreciating at around 15% annually – Given that INR 350 per sq. yd rates were released by NOIDA towards the latter half of 1989, and considering how the acquisition process began on 05.01.1991, it would be appropriate to apply a 15% escalation for one year to this price-bringing total guesstimate to Rs. 403 per sq. yd – Therefore, in the light of the evidence produced by both, the State and the landowners, and on employing the principle of guesstimation, it stands conclusively surmised that the landowners herein are entitled to an enhancement in the compensation awarded – Accordingly, this Court partly allow these present appeals and revise the rate of compensation to INR 403 per sq. yd. for the entire acquired land except such part of it which was subject matter of the decision in Bir Singh. [Paras 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 41, 42, 44] Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Maintainability of the Miscellaneous applications – Miscellaneous Applications seek parity with the rate of compensation awarded in Bir Singh:

Held: It would indeed be unfair to single out a few individual landowners and deny them the benefit of just compensation, owing to factors and processes outside their control – Comparing the impact of not allowing these miscellaneous applications solely on grounds of maintainability vis-à-vis allowing them marginally higher compensation in the larger interest of justice, this Court is persuaded to accede to the landowners’ prayers – Disallowing these applications would in a way be against the spirit of Article 14 of Constitution and will defy the right to treat those placed equally in an equal manner – Consequently, compensation is enhanced using powers u/Art. 142 of the Constitution – Moreover, it is clarified that since the analysis is agnostic to the decision in Bir Singh, this Court is, therefore, not applying a subsequent change of law, but instead only correcting a judicial error and restoring uniformity in a case involving peculiar circumstances – Consequently, the landowners in these miscellaneous applications are also held entitled to the new revised rate of INR 403 per sq. yd. for their acquired land. [Paras 47, 48, 49]

Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Can the landowners rely upon Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 to seek parity with Bir Singh:

Held: In the instant case, this Court is not delving deep into the landowners’ prayer for parity based on Section 28A of the 1894 Act in consonance with the Bir Singh judgement – There are three reasons to do so: (a) Bir Singh would not bind this Court given its precarious and sui generis facts; (b) the landowners have not demonstrated compliance with the procedural technicalities of this provision, such as writing to the Collector within the prescribed limitation period; and (c) the issue is rendered academic in light of the analysis where this Court has independently revised the rate of compensation to INR 403 per sq. yd for one and all. [Para 52] Doctrine/Principle – Principle of Guesstimation: Held: Guesstimation is a heuristic device that enables the court, in the absence of direct evidence and relevant sale exemplars, to make a reasonable and informed guess or estimation of the market value of the land under acquisition, and concomitantly the compensation payable by the appropriate Government – In that sense, guesstimation hinges on the Court’s ability to exercise informed judgement and expertise in assessing the market value of land, especially when the evidence does not tender a straightforward answer – This principle accentuates the fundamental understanding that determining compensation for land is not a matter of exact science but involves a significant element of estimation. [Paras 31, 32]