landowners invoking Section 64 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabiliation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (for short, “2013 Act”), were partly allowed.

3. Brief facts of the case are that 132 kanal of land owned by the appellants-landowners, situated in the revenue estate of Village Mohammadpur Jharsa, Tehsil & District Gurugram, was sought to be acquired vide notifications dated 24.12.2013 and 18.12.2014, issued under Sections 4 & 6, respectively, of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as “1894 Act), for the public purpose, namely, Metro Rail Track and its allied uses. The Land Acquisition Collector-cum-District Revenue Officer vide its award dated 13.01.2017, assessed the market value of the acquired land at the rate of Rs.1,90,00,000/- per acre.

4. Aggrieved of the same, the appellants-landowners invoked separate reference petition(s) under Section 64 of the 2013 Act, seeking enhancement of compensation. Upon consideration of the material available on record, the Reference Court vide its Award dated 11.04.2025, enhanced the market value to Rs.2,04,02,826/- per acre besides grant of all other statutory benefits.

5. Feeling dissatisfied with the aforesaid Award passed by the ld. Reference Court, the landowners as well as HSIIDC have preferred their appeals, details whereof are given at the bottom of the judgment.

6. Impugning the aforementioned award, learned counsel for the appellants-landowners submits that the award by the Land Acquisition Collector-cum-District Revenue Officer, Gurugram in the present case was passed in exercise of powers under Section 26 of the 2013 Act on

13.01.2017 and in such a situation, relying upon clause 1(b) to Section 26 read with explanation 2 thereof, the compensation was required to be assessed on the basis of average sale price for similar type of land situated in the same revenue estate or at best the nearest revenue estate by taking into account one-half of the total number of sale deeds in which the highest sale price was mentioned.

6.1 Learned counsel submits that though the ld. Reference Court took into account the 05 sale deeds pertaining to the same revenue estate of Village Mohammadpur Jharsa having the highest price/value and calculated the average sale price, however, wrongly applied deduction of 40% while observing that such sale instances were of small parcels. While relying upon the aforementioned statutory provisions i.e. Section 26 of the 2013 Act and the latest proposition of law made thereupon by the Hon’ble Apex Court in “Madhya Pardesh Road Development Corporation vs. Vincent Daniel and Others, 2025 (7) SCC 798” , learned counsel submits that under the new Land Acquisition Act, no deduction was required to be applied on the average sale price. He thus, submits that the market value should have been assessed exclusively on the basis of the average sale price of the highest sale exemplars as tabulated in paragraph No. 47 of the impugned award and thus, the market value was required to be enhanced accordingly. No other argument has been addressed.

7. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.3 submits that in view of the settled proposition of law in terms of repeated decisions rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court, the ld. Reference Court was fully justified in applying the deduction over the average sale price derived from the sale instances tabulated in paragraph No. 47 of the impugned award. In support, learned counsel places reliance upon the following decisions passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court:-

(i) Kasturi vs. State of Haryana, 2003(1) SCC 354. Relevant paras

14 to 17 are reproduced hereunder:-

“14 On facts and in the light of the legal position emerging from the various decisions referred to above, it is not possible for us to say that cut of 20% adopted by the learned Single Judge as affirmed by the Division Bench in the impugned judgment is wrong or unsustainable. It appears to us having re