SMT. PUSHPA DEVI SMT. PUSHPA DEVI SMT. PUSHPA DEVI SMT. PUSHPA DEVI & Ors. v. Vs Vs Vs STATE OF HARYANA STATE OF HARYANA STATE OF HARYANA & Anr.

this Court in the case of Mangaldas Raghavji Ruparel (supra).” Moreover, the genuineness of the aforementioned sale instances was not disputed by the respondent-State by way of adducing any contrary evidence on record. Thus, the sale instances produced by the appellants-landowners need to be taken into account for determination of market value in the case in hand. 7 1998 4229 of of of of 1998 RFA No.4229 RFA No. 19981998 42294229 RFA No. RFA No. [10]. Furthermore, although, the comparative location of the land parcels forming part the sale deeds Ex. P-1 and P-2 viz-a-viz the acquired land was not proved on record by way of any aks shajra or site plan, however, the proximity between the two parcels of land can be easily traced out from the relevant material available on record. A comparative chart of the khasra numbers of the acquired land as depicted in the notification dated 19.11.1987 issued under Section 6 of the 1894 Act in the case in hand viz-a-viz the khasra numbers of the land parcels forming part of the sale instances produced by the appellants-landowners is recorded hereunder:- Exhibits Date of sale Date of sale Exhibits Date of sale Date of sale Exhibits Exhibits Khasra numbers numbers Khasra numbers Khasra numbers Khasra corresponding to the sa corresponding to the sale le le le corresponding to the sa corresponding to the sa Khasra numbers of the acquired land in the Khasra numbers of the acquired land in the Khasra numbers of the acquired land in the Khasra numbers of the acquired land in the case in hand case in hand case in hand case in hand Ex.P-1 29.01.1990 Khasra no.183//16/1/7/1 Ex.P-2 15.01.1998 Khasra no.183//16/1/6 1, 2, 9, 10, 26, 44, 48, 49, 71, 72, 73, 78, 105, 114, 151, 173, 184, 338, 341, 371, 379, 388, 343, 414, 415, 416, 418, 419, 420. From the above chart, it is apparent that the land parcels forming part of the sale instances Ex.P-1 and P-2 are located in close geographical vicinity of the acquired land; possessed similar potential and locational advantages and thus, can be safely relied upon for determination of market value in the present case. [11]. A perusal of the Exs.P-1 and P-2 shows that both sale deeds pertain to the period post notification under Section 4 of the 1894 Act. However, as the said sale instances relate to the same revenue estate of Village Bohra Kalan, the same can be taken into consideration for determining the market value of the acquired land in the present case by applying the doctrine of de-escalation. Reliance in this 8 1998 4229 of of of of 1998 RFA No.4229 RFA No. 19981998 42294229 RFA No. RFA No. Ram Kishan regard can be placed upon the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in “Ram Kishan Ram Kishan Ram Kishan tc Vs. State of Haryana & Ors.” reported as (Since Deceased) Through his LRs eeeetc Vs. State of Haryana & Ors. (Since Deceased) Through his LRs tc Vs. State of Haryana & Ors. tc Vs. State of Haryana & Ors. (Since Deceased) Through his LRs (Since Deceased) Through his LRs 2025 INSC 441 whereby the principle of de-escalation and its applicability were 2025 INSC 441 2025 INSC 441 2025 INSC 441 discussed. The relevant paragraph Nos.25 and 26 therefrom are reproduced hereunder:- “25. In Peerappa Hanmantha Harijan (Dead) by Legal Representatives and Others v. State of Karnataka and Another, (2015) 10 SCC 469, finding that lands which were acquired by a later notification in 1988 were adjacent to the lands acquired in the case in question in 1981, this Court applied the principle of de-escalation. The relevant parts of the judgment are set out hereunder: "77. Further, the land which has been covered under notification in 1988 is also adjacent to the residential sites which were formed. The landowners in that case produced the sale deeds of the years 1986 and 1988 respectively, which was 2 years and 2 months earlier respectively to the notification issued in the year 1988 and some of which were two to three years earlier. Taking the said relevant facts into consideration, the High Court of Karnataka redetermined the compensation at Rs. 7.5 per square feet of land bearing Survey No. 389 covered in award passed in MFA No. 3796 of 2005 and Cross-Objection No. 213 of 2005 after giving deduction towards the developmental charges, de-escalation and conversion charges. The same method should be applied in the case on hand.

78. Further, the High Court ought to have taken into consideration the relevant fact that though the final notification for the land covered in MFA No. 3796 of 2005 and Cross-Objection No. 213 of 2005 was in the year 1988, it was for industrial development and the said land was also leased in favour of the allottee Company by KIADB to be used for the industrial development. The land along with the other lands covered in the 1981 notification was also acquired by the State Government for the purpose of the industrial development and allotted to the Company for the development of the industrial estate. Therefore, apart from the fact that there was a gap of 7 years in which the lands of the appellants were notified 1998 4229 of of of of 1998 RFA No.4229 RFA No. 19981998 42294229 RFA No. RFA No. 9 for acquisition to the land covered in MFA No. 3796 of 2005 and Cross- Objection No. 213 of 2005, it is an admitted fact that there is similarity in the nature of the land and the purpose for which they were acquired.

80. As per the survey conducted by the State Government, it is an undisputed fact that mineral is available in the land and the Company is extracting the same to be used as raw material for the manufacture of cement in its factory. Therefore, though the land in the present case is a short distance away from the lands covered in MFA No. 3796 of 2005 and Cross-Objection No. 213 of 2005, both have been acquired for the purpose of industrial development and sought to be used for the same purpose by the Company. The land of the appellants herein along with other lands that was acquired vide notification in 1981 has been allotted in favour of the Company for the purpose of extracting the mineral of limestone which is the raw material used for the purpose of manufacturing the cement used for the commercial purpose. Therefore, the land of the appellants is acquired for the non-agricultural potentiality and the same is used for commercial purpose. Therefore, determining deductions towards de-escalation at 5% per year for 7 years and 10% towards waiting and other incidental charges would justify the redetermination of the market value of the land of the appellants."

26. Moreover, in Chandrashekar (dead) by LRs and Others v. Land Acquisition Officer and Another, (2012) 1 SCC 390, this Court, while recognising the Principle of De-escalation held in Para 37, 40 and 42 as under:-

37. Even though escalation of market price of land is a question of fact, which should ordinarily be proved through cogent evidence yet, keeping in mind ground realities, and taking judicial notice thereof, we are of the view that land prices are on the rise throughout the country. The outskirts of Gulbarga Town are certainly not an exception to the rule. The exemplar sale deed dated 30-12- 1983 was executed exactly 1 year 7 months and 17 days after the publication of the preliminary Notification on 13-5-1982. Keeping in mind the judgments referred to hereinabove, we are of the view, that no fault can be found with the determination rendered by the High Court in making a deduction of 10% under the head of "de-escalation", 1998 4229 of of of of 1998 RFA No.4229 RFA No. 19981998 42294229 RFA No. RFA No. 10 specially when the period in question exceeded one year (as for annual deductions), by 7 months and 17 days.

40. Based on the aforesaid deductions, the High Court calculated the market value of the acquired land at Rs. 67,954 per acre. In spite of the above, the market value of the acquired land for disbursement of compensation to the land-losers was fixed by the High Court at Rs. 65,000 per acre. A perusal of the judgment rendered by the High Court reveals that in allowing final compensation at the rate of Rs. 65,000 per acre to the land-losers, the High Court had placed reliance on market value fixed by the High Court itself in an earlier case. In this behalf, it would be pertinent to mention, that the High Court had awarded Rs. 65,000 per acre as compensation payable to the landlosers, in an earlier process of litigation pertaining to acquisition of land, out of the same notification (under which the appellants' land was acquired). The aforesaid determination was rendered in respect of the land acquired from the revenue estate of Badepur Village.

42. The conclusions drawn by us hereinabove apply equally to Civil Appeals Nos. 8899-901 of 2011. In this behalf it would also be pertinent to mention, that the conclusions drawn by us pertain to acquisition of land falling in the revenue estate of Village Badepur. Insofar as the instant set of appeals are concerned, they pertain to land acquired from the revenue estate of Village Rajapur. The High Court, while making a reference to the land acquired from Village Rajapur, noticed that Village Rajapur had a lower market value as it was farther from the nerve centre of Gulbarga Town as compared to Village Badepur. As such, we are of the view that in the facts and circumstances of the present case, it would be just and appropriate to affirm the compensation determined by the High Court at Rs. 65,000 per acre, even for the land acquired from the revenue estate of Village Rajapur." [11.1.] The base price per acre derived from both the sale instances Ex. P-1 and P-2 is the same i.e. Rs.7,20,000/- per acre, however, the sale instance Ex. P-2 pertained to the year 1989, whereas the sale instance Ex. P-1 related to the year 11 1998 4229 of of of of 1998 RFA No.4229 RFA No. 19981998 42294229 RFA No. RFA No.

1990. Since the acquisition in the present case commenced vide notification dated

22.12.1986 under Section 4 of the 1894 Act, it would be appropriate to place reliance upon the sale instance Ex. P-2, which pertained to the year 1989 being in closer temporal proximity to the date of acquisition and also relating to a comparatively larger area, thus, being the most suitable exemplar. [12]. Taking into account the fact that the sale deed (Ex.P-2) is dated

18.08.1989, whereas the acquisition in the present case commenced vide notification dated 22.12.1986; for the time gap of around 2 years 8 months between the date of issuance of notification under Section 4 of the 1894 Act in the case in hand and the date of sale deed (Ex.P-2), applying depreciation/de-escalation @ 12% per annum on the base price per acre derived from the sale instance Ex. P-2, the value comes to Rs.4,89,600/- per acre. [13]. Furthermore, the acquired land in the present case measures 8.84 acres whereas the sale instance Ex. P-2 pertains to a small parcel of land measuring merely 1 Marla, therefore a deduction @ 50% over the base price per acre derived from the sale instance dated 18.08.1989 (Ex.P-2), towards smallness of its area would suffice in the opinion of this Court. Accordingly, applying the same, the market value comes to Rs. 2,44,800/- per acre. [14]. In the given facts since the acquisition was carried out for the public purpose, namely, “for construction of a road from Bohra Kalan to Ghosgarh” as such, the respondent-State neither suffered any loss towards optimum utilization of the area acquired nor did it incur expenditure towards providing of additional 12 1998 4229 of of of of 1998 RFA No.4229 RFA No. 19981998 42294229 RFA No. RFA No. infrastructural amenities like parks, green belts, etc., thus, no cut towards development cost needs to be imposed. [15]. Accordingly, the market value for the land under acquisition is per acre on the date of notification under 2,44,800////---- per acre assessed at the rate of RsRsRsRs....2,44,800 per acre per acre 2,44,800 2,44,800 Section 4 of the 1894 Act as per the calculation below:- Calculation:---- Calculation: Calculation: Calculation: Sale 18.08.1989 (Ex.P-2) Base Price = Rs.7,20,000/- per acre Depreciation @ 12% for 2 years 8 months 7,20,000 - 2,30,400 (Base Price - Interest) = 4,89,600 Deduction of 50% 4,89,600 - 2,44,800 (Price – 50% of Price) = 2,44,800 Net Value Net Value Net Value Net Value 2,44,800 ////---- Rs.Rs.Rs.Rs. 2,44,800 2,44,800 2,44,800 [16]. In addition, the landowners shall also be entitled for award of all statutory benefits and interest as provided under the provisions of the 1894 Act (amended upto date). The landowners shall also be entitled for solatium besides award of interest thereupon. [17]. Consequently, in view of the discussion made hereinabove, the appeal preferred at the instance of landowners is hereby partly allowed in the aforesaid terms. [18]. Wherever the landowner(s) has/have unfortunately expired in the appeal(s)/cross-objection(s) after filing thereof and the legal heirs have not been 13 1998 4229 of of of of 1998 RFA No.4229 RFA No. 19981998 42294229 RFA No. RFA No. impleaded, they shall be at liberty to seek execution of the present decision by moving appropriate application(s) before the learned Executing Court. [19]. All pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. AprilAprilAprilApril 17171717, , , , 2020202026262626 Atik (HARKESH MANUJA) (HARKESH MANUJA) (HARKESH MANUJA) (HARKESH MANUJA) JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable Yes/No Yes/No