P&H HC Sends 607 Jhajjar Land-Compensation Appeals Back, Says 2008–10 Sales—not 2011—Must Guide Fresh Valuation

The State issued a notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 on 7 July 2011 to acquire 895.67 acres in the revenue estates of Jhajjar, Sikanderpur and Jondhi for residential sectors.

The Collector’s award dated 4 July 2014 assessed compensation at ₹28,13,951 per acre. Because the award was not made before 1 January 2014, compensation was assessed under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (“2013 Act”). The Authority enhanced the market value to ₹74,36,310 per acre. The State appealed seeking a reduction, while landowners sought further enhancement.

The Authority relied on sale deeds from 7 July 2007 to 7 July 2010, applied a 35% development deduction and did not apply a multiplier.

In the appeals, the High Court directed the Collector to provide further sale-deed data, and the parties ultimately sought a remand for reassessment.

Section 24(1)(a) of the 2013 Act makes its compensation provisions applicable where an acquisition under the 1894 Act remained without an award before 1 January 2014.

Section 26(1), including Explanations 1 and 2, requires the market value to be determined by the statutory criteria and the average sale price to be based on relevant transactions from the three years preceding the year in which acquisition is proposed, with the highest-priced half of the transactions taken into account; “year” means calendar year under Section 3(66) of the General Clauses Act, 1897.

Explanation 4 to Section 26 permits the Collector to discount or enhance a computed value where it does not reflect the actual prevailing market value, but reasons must be recorded; the adjustment may take account of valuation principles such as deduction and belting. The Court relied on Madhya Pradesh Road Development Corporation v. Vincent Daniel, 2025 (7) SCC 798, on the operation of Section 26 and Explanation 4.

Sections 30(3) and 69(2) provide for an additional amount at 12% per annum for the prescribed period, while Section 69(1) requires the Authority to consider whether the Collector followed Sections 26 to 30.

The Court held that, for this acquisition initiated under Section 4 of the 1894 Act on 7 July 2011, the relevant year of proposed acquisition was 2011. Applying Explanation 1 to Section 26, the relevant three calendar years were therefore 2008, 2009 and 2010; sale deeds from 2011 had to be excluded. The Authority had instead used a period running from 7 July 2007 to 7 July 2010, so its selection of comparable transactions required reconsideration.

The Collector had not provided complete sale-deed data, and the material necessary to calculate the average for the relevant years was not before the Court. The reassessment must therefore use agricultural-land transactions from the nearest vicinity area, or, if unavailable, the nearest village; select the highest-priced half of the relevant deeds across the three-year data set; and consider any adjustment under Explanation 4 with reasons.

The Court also held that the 12% additional amount was payable from 7 July 2011, the date of the 1894 Act notification, until the Collector’s award or taking of possession, whichever was earlier; for the present case, the Court specified the period up to 4 July 2014.

The Collector was directed to provide agricultural-land sale-deed data for 2008 and 2009 in addition to the 2010 data already supplied; landowners may identify relevant deeds omitted from the Collector’s data.

Landowners were held entitled to 12% per annum for the period from 7 July 2011 to 4 July 2014. Compensation already paid need not be refunded pending the Authority’s fresh decision, subject to that final decision; the requiring body, HSVP, is to be joined in the Authority proceedings.