Gurgaon Landowners Keep ₹2.87 Crore/Acre Market Valuation As P&H HC Rejects Corporation’s Bid To Cut It And Their Bid For More

The appeals arose from a Reference Court award dated 25 January 2014 concerning 1 acre 3 kanal acquired in Gurgaon for an overhead services reservoir and boosting station.

The Section 4 notification was issued on 17 December 2010, followed by a Section 6 notification on 21 March 2011.

The Collector had assessed compensation at ₹1.23 crore per acre; the Reference Court enhanced the market value to ₹2,86,91,520 per acre, relying on a sale deed (Ex.P-1) and applying a 30% cut.

The Corporation appealed seeking a reduction, while the landowners filed cross-objections seeking higher compensation.

The Corporation challenged reliance on the sale deed and argued that an earlier award for nearby land should have been followed; the landowners defended the Reference Court’s assessment.

Under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, the notifications identify the acquired land and the relevant acquisition; compensation references and appeals are governed by Sections 18 and 54, respectively.

Market value may be assessed by reference to comparable sale transactions or prior awards, with the suitability of each exemplar depending on the evidence, including the nature and area of the land.

A development cut may be imposed, and the appropriate percentage depends on the circumstances; the Court observed that the Supreme Court has approved cuts ranging from 20% to 70%, without a fixed formula.

The Court also referred to *Manoj Kumar & Ors. v. State of Haryana & Anr.*, 2018 (13) SCC 96, in considering the use of a prior award as a valuation basis.

The Court upheld the Reference Court’s preference for the sale deed because it covered 5,273 square yards—an area comparable to the 1-acre-3-kanal acquisition—whereas the earlier award concerned only 0.03 acre.

It also noted that the market values in the earlier award and the impugned award were broadly similar, and concluded that the earlier award did not justify displacing the sale-deed-based assessment.

Although the Reference Court had not considered the possibility that the business entity purchasing the land under Ex.P-1 might have paid above the prevailing market rate, the Court found no basis, in light of the circumstances and the flexible approach to development cuts, to increase or reduce the 30% cut.

Any delay in filing an appeal was condoned, but the appellants were not entitled to interest for the delayed period.

Pending applications were also disposed of.