LegalFirms.in
LegalFirms.in Judgments · legalfirms.in/judgments/ram-kishan-since-deceased-through-his-lrs-etc-vs-state-of-haryana-ors-20250403/ · Printed 07 Nov 2026
Civil · Reportable judgment

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

Court
Supreme Court of India
Date
3 April 2025
Case No.
Civil Appeal No(s). 4772-4773 of 2025
Result
Disposed
Bench
Bhushan Ramkrishna Gavai, K.V. Viswanathan
Citation
[2025] 4 S.C.R. 2563 : 2025 INSC 441
Acts & Sections
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 Haryana Urban Development Authority Act…
Supreme Court Reports [2025] 4 S.C.R. 2563 : 2025 INSC 441
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.
Headnote

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 months in date of two notifications, Reference Court applied deescalation 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:

Read the full headnote (6 more paragraphs)

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.

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, 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.

Keywords: Land Acquisition · De-escalation · Enhancement · Potentiality factor · Base value

As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Headnotes prepared by: Mukund P Unny, Hony. Associate Editor (Verified by: Shibani Ghosh, Adv.) 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(. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.

Full Judgment Text

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. 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.
Full text available to subscribers
Subscribe to access complete judgment text, daily digests, and AI-powered legal research tools. For informational and research purposes only.
View Subscription Plans →
Annual plans from ₹1,599 + GST.

This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.

All SC judgments →