National Highway Authority of India v. Kamla Devi & Ors.

It is in the aforesaid background that NHAI has now taken recourse to Section 37 of the Act for assailing the common judgment passed by the learned District Judge on

04.09.2023 as also common arbitral award passed by learned Arbitrator on 05.09.2017. 2 2019 (9) SCC 304 6 ( 2025:HHC:34018 Submissions: - Learned counsel for the appellant has contended

#3. 3(i) that: - (a). Sale deed relied upon by the learned Arbitrator (Ext.PW-2/B) dated 16.01.2012 registered on 01.02.2012 in Mohal Palthin was for a very small area i.e. 01 biswa as compared to large tract of land acquired under the questioned land acquisition process. The said sale deed could not have been relied upon for assessing the market value of the large tract of land. (b) Learned Arbitrator had unreasonably equated the lands situated in Mohal Palthin with village Bhajwani. There was neither any basis nor evidence on record to compare land in village Palthin with that of land in village Bhajwani. Learned Arbitrator erred in treating villages Palthin and Bhajwani as one single unit, despite the fact that the nature, character of lands along with other necessary features of the lands in two villages were not similar. (c) Learned Arbitrator had not followed procedure and parameters laid down in Section 3G (7) of the NH Act. The award passed by him suffers from patent illegality and is required to be declared as void. 7 ( 2025:HHC:34018 (d) Learned District Judge erred in law in awarding further 12% interest per annum to the land owners on enhanced market value of land from the date of publication of notification under Section 3A of the NH Act, till the date of the award of competent authority or the date of taking possession of land, whichever was earlier. Award of 12% interest by invoking Section 23(1-A) of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 was not warranted in view of orders passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in National Highway Authority of India & Anr. Vs. Tehal Singh & Ors.3 as also in Union of India & Anr. Vs. Tarsem Singh & Ors.4 3(ii) Learned counsel for the respondents defended the award passed by the learned Arbitrator as also the judgment passed by the learned District Judge on all counts.

#4. Consideration Heard learned counsel for the parties and considered the case file. 4(i) Small tract of land/deduction. 4(i)(a) The contention raised for the appellant is that sale deed relied upon was in respect of 01 biswa of land in 3 Miscellaneous Application Diary No. 2572/2020 in Civil Appeal No. 7086/2019 decided on 30.07.2021 4 Miscellaneous Application No. 1773/2021 in Civil Appeal No. 7064/2019 decided on 04.02.2025 8 ( 2025:HHC:34018 Mohal Palthin, whereas the land acquired runs in several bighas (58-18-01 bigha). The sale deed for small parcel of land could not have been made the basis for determining the market value for acquired large chunk of land. Learned Arbitrator as also the learned District Judge have appropriately considered the sale deed Ext. PW- 2/B executed on 16.01.2012 and registered in the office of Sub Registrar Ghumarwin on 01.02.2012. In terms of this sale deed, Sh. Husan Chand had purchased one biswa of land in Mohal Palthin from Sh. Onkar s/o of Sh. Nand Lal for consideration of Rs.1,50,000/-. Sale deed has been duly proved on record. Learned Arbitrator had also examined the relevancy, admissibility & probative value of the sale deed and its effect on determining the market value of the acquired land. As noticed, Ext.PW-2/B was executed on

16.01.2012 and registered in the office of Sub Registrar Ghumarwin on 01.02.2012, whereas notification Section 3A of the NH Act for revenue village Palthin was issued on

17.08.2012. The sale deed was executed before the issuance of notification under Section 3A, it, therefore, was justly relied upon for the purpose of determining the compensation. 4(ii) Learned counsel for the appellant placed reliance upon Horrmal (Deceased) through his LRs & 9 ( 2025:HHC:34018 Others Vs. State of Haryana Ors.5 more specifically on following para-33 thereof to contend that learned Arbitrator should have allowed deduction to the extent of 75% towards the developmental charges: - “33. On the face of these distinctive factors lies the challenge of ascertaining the appropriate extent of deduction to be made. As already established, judicial precedents dictate that the amount of deduction to be applied towards developmental charges can range from anywhere between 20% to 75%. On the one hand, we must acknowledge and recognise the stark disparity between the size of the land covered by the sale exemplar and the acquired land. On the other hand, it is incumbent that we take note of the various advantageous factors associated with the acquired land at the time of issuance of the Section 4 notification. A balanced approach in adjudicating this particular issue is therefore necessary. Considering these militating aspects, we cannot justify applying deduction at either extreme end of the spectrum. A prudent course of action might be to steer a middle path, aiming for a range approximately between 46% to 50%.” The judgment rendered in Horrmal5 relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant would not be attracted to the facts of the present case as in the said case, the lands were acquired for the purposes of carving out the residential and utility areas, whereas in the instant case, the lands has been acquired for four laning of the road. 5 SLP© No. 7963/2023 decided on 21.10.2024 10 ( 2025:HHC:34018 It would also be appropriate to take notice of Spl. Land Acquisition Officer & Anr. vs. M.K. Rafiq Saheb6, where the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that there is no absolute rule that sale instances of smaller chunks of land cannot be considered when a large tract of land is acquired. In certain scenarios, such sale deeds pertaining to smaller pieces of land can be put to use for determining the value of acquired land which is comparatively large in area. The Court further held that it is hardly possible for a claimant to produce sale instances of large tracts of land as they are generally very far & few and normally the sale instances would relate to small pieces of land. The Apex Court noted that this limitation of sale transaction cannot operate to the disadvantage of the claimant. Relevant paragraphs from the judgment reads as under: - “19. The judgment of the High Court is well reasoned and well considered. We find no perversity in its reasoning. The only issue is that Ex. P-5, which was relied upon by the High Court, relates to a small piece of land, whereas the acquisition is of a larger piece of land. It is not an absolute rule that when the acquired land is a large tract of land, sale instances relating to smaller pieces of land cannot be considered. There are certain circumstances when sale deeds of small pieces of land can be used to determine the value of acquired land which is comparatively large in area, 6(2011) 7 SCC 714 11 ( 2025:HHC:34018 as can be seen from the judicial pronouncements mentioned hereunder.

#20. It has been held in the case of Land Acquisition Officer, Kammarapally Village, Nizamabad District, Andhra Pradesh v. Nookala Rajamallu and Ors.7 that:- "6. Where large area the subject-matter of acquisition, rate at which small plots are sold cannot be said to be a safe criterion. Reference in this context may be made to few decisions of this Court in Collector of Lakhimour v. Bhuban Chandra Dutta8, Prithvi Raj Taneja v. State of M.P.9 and Kausalya Devi Bogra v. Land Acquisition Officer10 .

#7. It cannot, however, be laid down as an absolute proposition that the rates fixed for the small plots cannot be the basis for fixation of the rate. For example, where there is no other material, it may in appropriate cases be open to the adjudicating Court to make comparison of the prices paid for small plots of land. However, necessary deductions/adjustments have to be made while determining the prices."

#21. In the case of Bhagwathula Samanna and Ors. v. Special Tahsildar and Land Acquisition Officer11, it was held: "13. The proposition that large area of land cannot possibly fetch a price at the same rate at which small plots are sold is not absolute proposition and in given circumstances it would be permissible to take into account the price fetched by the small plots of land. If the larger tract of land because of advantageous position is capable of being used for the purpose for which the smaller plots are used and is also situated