1. Land acquisition for industrial township under Land Acquisition Act, 1894 — Dispute over quantum of compensation and application of belting method for adjacent villages. (Para 2 )
Back
Next 
2025 Supreme(SC) 780
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Surya Kant, Ujjal Bhuyan, JJ.
Krishan Kumar – Appellant
Versus
State of Haryana and others – Respondents
Civil Appeal Nos. 6427-6429 of 2025 (Arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 9732-9734/2023) WITH Civil Appeal No. /2025 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. …/2025 – Diary No. 39178/2022), Civil Appeal No. /2025, (Arising out of SLP (C) No. …/2025 – Diary No. 39180/2022), Civil Appeal No. /2025 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 20055/2023), Civil Appeal Nos. /2025, (Arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 20003-20006/2023), Civil Appeal Nos. /2025, (Arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 20008-20009/2023), Civil Appeal Nos. /2025 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 9735-9739/2023), Civil Appeal No. /2025 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 20007/2023), Civil Appeal Nos. /2025, (Arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 23895-23897/2023), Civil Appeal No. /2025, (Arising out of SLP (C) No. …/2025 – Diary No. 48299/2023), Civil Appeal No. /2025, (Arising out of SLP (C) No. …/2025 – Diary No. 50895/2023)
Decided On : 07-05-2025
Important Points
Adjacent lands must be compensated equitably unless clear distinctions justify differing rates, emphasizing fairness in land acquisition compensation.
Subject
Land Acquisition - Compensation Assessment
Act Referred
Headnote
(A) Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Sections 4, 6, 9, and 11 - Compensation for acquired land - High Court enhanced compensation for lands in Kukrola and Fazalwas, determining INR 87,34,885 per acre for Kukrola and INR 1,21,00,000 per acre for Fazalwas based on proximity to NH-8 - The court found no justification for differing compensation rates for adjacent lands, emphasizing the principle of equitable compensation for similarly situated landowners. (Paras 10, 11, 12, 18, 57)
(B) Compensation Determination - The court upheld the belting method for compensation assessment, affirming the application of a 10% annual escalation rate and rejecting the imposition of a development cut for the inner belt due to its inherent market value. (Paras 22, 54)
Facts of the case:
The appeals arose from compensation awarded for land acquired for the Chaudhary Devi Lal Industrial Model Township, with landowners contesting the compensation rates set by the High Court. The Reference Court had initially set compensation at INR 30,00,000 per acre, which was later enhanced by the High Court. (Paras 5.1, 5.4, 5.7)
Findings of Court:
The court found that the compensation awarded for Kukrola's inner belt should be equal to that of Fazalwas, thus enhancing it to INR 1,21,00,000 per acre, while maintaining the outer belt compensation at INR 62,14,121 per acre. (Paras 57)
Issues: The main issues were whether the High Court erred in awarding differing compensation amounts for lands in Kukrola and Fazalwas and whether the quantum of compensation awarded was appropriate. (Paras 10)
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that adjacent lands must be compensated equitably unless clear distinctions justify otherwise, emphasizing the need for uniformity in compensation for lands with similar potential. (Paras 18, 19)
Result: Appeals partly allowed; compensation for Kukrola's inner belt enhanced to INR 1,21,00,000 per acre.
(B) Compensation Determination - The court upheld the belting method for compensation assessment, affirming the application of a 10% annual escalation rate and rejecting the imposition of a development cut for the inner belt due to its inherent market value. (Paras 22, 54)
Facts of the case:
The appeals arose from compensation awarded for land acquired for the Chaudhary Devi Lal Industrial Model Township, with landowners contesting the compensation rates set by the High Court. The Reference Court had initially set compensation at INR 30,00,000 per acre, which was later enhanced by the High Court. (Paras 5.1, 5.4, 5.7)
Findings of Court:
The court found that the compensation awarded for Kukrola's inner belt should be equal to that of Fazalwas, thus enhancing it to INR 1,21,00,000 per acre, while maintaining the outer belt compensation at INR 62,14,121 per acre. (Paras 57)
Issues: The main issues were whether the High Court erred in awarding differing compensation amounts for lands in Kukrola and Fazalwas and whether the quantum of compensation awarded was appropriate. (Paras 10)
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that adjacent lands must be compensated equitably unless clear distinctions justify otherwise, emphasizing the need for uniformity in compensation for lands with similar potential. (Paras 18, 19)
Result: Appeals partly allowed; compensation for Kukrola's inner belt enhanced to INR 1,21,00,000 per acre.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Vibhuti Sushant Gupta, Adv. Mr. Narender Kumar Verma, AOR Dr. Mrs. Vipin Gupta, AOR Mr. Gagan Gupta, Sr. Adv. Mr. Ananta Prasad Mishra, AOR Mr. Manoj Swarup, Sr. Adv. Mr. Ankit Swarup, AOR Mr. Alok Sangwan, Sr. A.A.G. Mr. Samar Vijay Singh, AOR Mr. Sumit Kumar Sharma, Adv. Mr. Rajat Sangwan, Adv. Ms. Sabarni Som, Adv. Mr. Fateh Singh, Adv. Mr. Shikhar Narwal, Adv. Mr. Amit Ojha, Adv. Mr. Keshav Mittal, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Manoj Swarup, Sr. Adv. Mr. Ankit Swarup, AOR Mr. Samar Vijay Singh, AOR Mr. Alok Sangwan, Sr. A.A.G. Mr. Akshay Amritanshu, AOR Ms. Sumit Kumar Sharma, Adv. Mr. Sumit Kumar Sharma, Adv. Ms. Rajat Sangwan, Adv. Mr. Rajat Sangwan, Adv. Ms. Pragya Upadhyay, Adv. Ms. Drishti Saraf, Adv. Mr. Shikhar Narwal, Adv. Ms. Drishti Rawal, Adv. Mr. Gagan Gupta, Sr. Adv. Mr. Ananta Prasad Mishra, AOR Mr. Vikas Verma, AOR Ms. Sapna Verma, Adv. Mr. Shafik Ahmed, Adv. Ms. Kavita Verma, Adv. Ms. Anju, Adv. Mr. Varun Sharma, Adv. Ms. Aakriti Yunas, Adv. Dr. Mrs. Vipin Gupta, AOR Mr. Vibhuti Sushant Gupta, Adv. Mr. Keane Sardinha, Adv. Mr. Shiv Kumar Khacchi, Adv. Ms. Aparna Gupta, Adv. Mr. Narender Kumar Verma, AOR Mr. H L Tikku, Sr. Adv. Mr. Vikas Kumar, AOR Ms. Yashmeet Kaur, Adv. Mr. Arun Kumar, Adv. Mr. Kedar R Seludkar, Adv. Ms. Jayati Arora, Adv.
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Vibhuti Sushant Gupta, Adv. Mr. Narender Kumar Verma, AOR Dr. Mrs. Vipin Gupta, AOR Mr. Gagan Gupta, Sr. Adv. Mr. Ananta Prasad Mishra, AOR Mr. Manoj Swarup, Sr. Adv. Mr. Ankit Swarup, AOR Mr. Alok Sangwan, Sr. A.A.G. Mr. Samar Vijay Singh, AOR Mr. Sumit Kumar Sharma, Adv. Mr. Rajat Sangwan, Adv. Ms. Sabarni Som, Adv. Mr. Fateh Singh, Adv. Mr. Shikhar Narwal, Adv. Mr. Amit Ojha, Adv. Mr. Keshav Mittal, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Manoj Swarup, Sr. Adv. Mr. Ankit Swarup, AOR Mr. Samar Vijay Singh, AOR Mr. Alok Sangwan, Sr. A.A.G. Mr. Akshay Amritanshu, AOR Ms. Sumit Kumar Sharma, Adv. Mr. Sumit Kumar Sharma, Adv. Ms. Rajat Sangwan, Adv. Mr. Rajat Sangwan, Adv. Ms. Pragya Upadhyay, Adv. Ms. Drishti Saraf, Adv. Mr. Shikhar Narwal, Adv. Ms. Drishti Rawal, Adv. Mr. Gagan Gupta, Sr. Adv. Mr. Ananta Prasad Mishra, AOR Mr. Vikas Verma, AOR Ms. Sapna Verma, Adv. Mr. Shafik Ahmed, Adv. Ms. Kavita Verma, Adv. Ms. Anju, Adv. Mr. Varun Sharma, Adv. Ms. Aakriti Yunas, Adv. Dr. Mrs. Vipin Gupta, AOR Mr. Vibhuti Sushant Gupta, Adv. Mr. Keane Sardinha, Adv. Mr. Shiv Kumar Khacchi, Adv. Ms. Aparna Gupta, Adv. Mr. Narender Kumar Verma, AOR Mr. H L Tikku, Sr. Adv. Mr. Vikas Kumar, AOR Ms. Yashmeet Kaur, Adv. Mr. Arun Kumar, Adv. Mr. Kedar R Seludkar, Adv. Ms. Jayati Arora, Adv.
Table of Contents
2. Landowners seek parity between adjacent villages and higher escalation — State contends for lower compensation based on different sale exemplars and higher development cuts. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 )
3. Belting method is appropriate for large acquisitions near infrastructure — Adjacent lands with similar potential require equitable compensation — Development cuts are unnecessary for development-ready inner-belt lands. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 53 , 54 , 55 )
4. Adjacent lands with similar potential must be compensated equitably — Belting method applies to non-homogeneous land — Development cuts are not mandatory for land with inherent development potential. (Para 14 , 18 , 22 , 54 )
5. Compensation for outer belt upheld — Compensation for inner belt in one village enhanced to achieve parity with the adjacent village. (Para 57 , 58 )
6. When should adjacent villages be awarded similar compensation for land acquisition?
Adjacent lands or villages possessing similar potential and advantages must be compensated equitably unless clear, objective distinctions justify otherwise. If the situation and potential of the land in two different villages are the same, they should be awarded similar compensation. (Para 14 , 18 )
7. What is the belting method in land acquisition and when is it applicable?
The belting method divides land into distinct zones based on proximity to key infrastructural assets. It is applicable in large-scale acquisitions where the land is non-homogeneous and the benefits of proximity to major infrastructure can be clearly delineated. (Para 22 , 23 )
8. Is a development cut mandatory for all acquired lands?
No. While deductions are typically made when valuing large undeveloped tracts based on smaller plots, they are not mandatory. For lands that are development-ready due to proximity to major infrastructure, applying a development cut would unjustifiably reduce the compensation. (Para 39 , 54 )
9. What criteria determine the suitability of a sale deed as a comparable exemplar?
Suitability depends on temporal proximity to the Section 4 Notification, genuineness of the transaction, geographical nearness of the land, comparable sizes of the land parcels, and similarity in the nature of the lands. (Para 28 , 30 , 34 , 49 )
JUDGMENT :
SURYA KANT, J.
Leave granted.
2. The instant batch of cross-appeals have been preferred by the Haryana State Industrial and Infrastructure Development Corporation (HSIIDC) and various landowners, challenging the quantum of compensation awarded by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh (High Court) for the land situated in the villages of Fazalwas and Kukrola, Tehsil Manesar, District Gurgaon, State of Haryana.
3. The High Court has conclusively determined the quantum of compensation through various identical impugned orders. However, for the purposes of lucidity, we have sought to refer to HSIIDC v. Pinky Yadav and others , RFA-4959-2015 (O&M) and other connected cases. and Kanwar Sain Jain and another v. State of Haryana and others , RFA-4437-2014 (O&M) and other connected cases. which may be considered as the ‘lead judgments’ for the villages of Kukrola and Fazalwas, respectively.
4. The aforementioned decisions have enhanced compensation for the acquired lands in both villages, specifically for the lands abutting National Highway-8 (Delhi-Jaipur Road) (NH-8), up to the depth of 5 acres to INR 87,24,885 per acre for Kukrola and INR 1,21,00,000 per acre for Fazalwas. Further, the High Court has also retained the compensation awarded by the Reference Court for lands situated beyond the marker of depth of 5 acres i.e. INR 62,14,421 per acre for both the villages.
A. FACTS
5. At this juncture, it is imperative to briefly advert to the factual circumstances giving rise to the instant appeals:
5.1 The acquisition proceedings for the subject lands commenced vide a Notification, issued on 25.04.2008 by the State of Haryana, under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (1894 Act), ,proposing the acquisition of a total of 3510 acres 5 kanals and 1 marla of land, spread across the villages of Fazalwas, Kukrola, Kharkhri, Bas Lambi, Mokalwas, Seharavan, and Fakharpur, District Gurgaon. The public purpose of the acquisition was to build Chaudhary Devi Lal Industrial Model Township (Township) . This Township was planned as an integrated complex for industrial, commercial, and other public utilities in this area.
5.2 Considering that the scope of adjudication in the present batch of appeals is limited to the rates of compensation qua the lands of villages of Kukrola and Fazalwas alone, we have deemed it fit to restrict this factual reiteration to these villages only. It is pertinent to mention here that out of the total area sought to be acquired by the common Section 4 Notification, 221 kanals and 4 marlas of land was situated within the revenue estate of Kukrola, and 435 kanals 14 marlas of land was situated within Fazalwas.
5.3 Following the Section 4 Notification, a declaration came to be issued by the State on 09.03.2009 under Section 6 of the 1894 Act, followed by notices under Section 9 thereof. Subsequently, the District Revenue Officer-cum-Land Acquisition Collector, Gurgaon (LAC) issued two different Awards under Section 11 on the same date, i.e. on 24.08.2009. The Award No. 20 pertained to Fazalwas, and Award No. 21 dealt with Kukrola. Both Awards uniformly determined the quantum of compensation for these villages to be INR 30,00,000 per acre, based on prevalent rates supplied by the District Collector, Gurgaon. Additionally, solatium at the rate of 30% as well as an additional amount of 12% per annum formed part of the Awards.
5.4 Being dissatisfied with the amount of compensation awarded by the LAC, landowners from both villages filed Reference Petitions under Section 18 of the 1894 Act. The Reference Court, vide its common Award passed on 19.10.2013 enhanced the compensation for Kukrola from INR 30,00,000 to INR 62,14,421 per acre. While doing so, the Reference Court primarily relied upon a sale deed, i.e. Ex. P-1 dated 05.06.2006, produced by the landowners. It granted an escalation of 10% per annum over the sale exemplar, noting the high potentiality of the acquired lands, and citing their proximity to th
