P&H HC Sets Mujessar Metro Land Value At ₹30,000/Sq Yard, Rejects ₹70,000 Commercial Benchmark From 5 Km Away

Haryana acquired land in Village Mujessar and other villages for metro stations and parking sites, following a notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 dated 4 July 2012.

The Collector assessed compensation at different rates according to the land’s stated use; the Reference Court assessed the market value of the Mujessar land at ₹32,000 per square yard, after applying a development deduction to a value of ₹40,000 per square yard.

Landowners sought further enhancement, while the State challenged the enhanced awards. The appeals were heard together because they raised common issues.

The appeals arose under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, while the underlying references were made under Section 18; compensation is assessed under the principles in Section 23.

In determining market value, a genuine sale transaction concerning the acquired land itself is a material and ordinarily weighty exemplar; the Court relied on Spl. Tehsildar, Land Acquisition, Vishakapatnam v. Smt. A. Mangala Gowri, 1991 (4) SCC 218, which cautions against ignoring a bona fide transaction relating to the very land acquired in favour of an award concerning other land.

The Court also treated post-notification sale deeds as unsuitable for determining value as at the Section 4 notification date and recognised that market value may differ by location and land use.

Under Section 23, severance damages require a fact-specific assessment; they are not automatically payable at a uniform percentage and depend on the effect of the acquisition on the remaining land.

The Court considered the sale deeds, the land’s use, the applicable rates and the Reference Court’s findings.

Although a sale deed related to acquired land described it as industrial, the Reference Court had found the acquired land to be residential, and the landowners did not challenge that finding. The Court therefore assessed value by reference to the residential land evidence and rates, including the Divisional Level Committee’s residential rate and the relevant sale deeds.

It declined to apply Hydraulics and Pneumatics because that case concerned commercial land more than five kilometres away, whereas the present land was found to be residential and the evidence did not support a value of ₹70,000 per square yard.

Severance damages could not be resolved uniformly across the batch: the Reference Court would need to consider each eligible claimant’s evidence and the specific effect of the acquisition, without receiving fresh evidence.

The superstructure issue likewise required remittal only where it had been raised in the reference application or supported by evidence.

It remanded the severance-damages issue to the Reference Court for determination only for landowners who had claimed severance damages in their reference applications and led evidence; no fresh evidence may be taken.

It also remanded the superstructure-compensation issue, subject to the same condition that the issue had been raised in the reference application or supported by evidence.

The appeals and cross-objections were disposed of on those terms. Any delay in filing an appeal was condoned, but the landowners were held not entitled to interest for the delayed period.