Uttarakhand HC Upholds Rs. 445.68 Per Sq. Metre Award for Land Acquired for Power Grid Sub-Station in Haridwar

The High Court of Uttarakhand dismissed a first appeal seeking enhanced compensation for 15.4811 hectares acquired in Village Puhana, affirming the exemplar sale deed and 20% development deduction adopted by the Special Land Acquisition Officer.

Justice Siddhartha Sah, sitting singly at the High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital, dismissed First Appeal No. 43 of 2014 on 8 May 2026, affirming the compensation of Rs. 445.68 per square metre awarded for land acquired in Village Puhana, Tehsil Roorkee, District Haridwar for the construction of a 400 KV sub-station by Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd. The legal heirs of the original claimant Haneef had challenged the judgment and order dated 18 December 2013 passed by the 5th Additional District Judge, Haridwar in Reference Case No. 28 of 2007, seeking enhancement of compensation to Rs. 650 per square metre. The High Court found no error in the exemplar sale deed selected by the Special Land Acquisition Officer and upheld the 20% development deduction, answering both points for determination against the appellants.

Acquisition and the Award Under Challenge

Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd. submitted a proposal to the State for acquisition of 15.4811 hectares of land in Village Puhana, Tehsil Roorkee, District Haridwar to set up a 400 KV sub-station. A notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was published in the Gazette on 10 August 2005 and in newspapers on 10 September 2005. The public notice followed on 29 September 2005. A notification under Section 6 of the Act was issued on 3 March 2006 and published in two newspapers on 1 May 2006. The Urgency Clause under Section 17 of the Act was invoked and possession was taken on 3 May 2006.

The Special Land Acquisition Officer (SLAO), Haridwar declared the award on 20 November 2006 at a flat rate of Rs. 445.68 per square metre. To arrive at this figure, the SLAO summoned all sale deeds of the acquired property for the three years preceding the Section 4(1) notification from the Sub-Registrar's office, Haridwar. Thirty-six sale deeds were examined. The SLAO selected the sale deed at Serial No. 34 — executed between Avdesh Kumar and Rajnikant Gupta on 3 June 2005 for Khasra No. 284/2, Village Puhana, covering 0.0718 hectares sold for Rs. 4 lakhs — as the exemplar. This worked out to Rs. 55,71,030.64 per hectare. After a 20% deduction as provided under the Land Acquisition Manual, the rate came to Rs. 44,56,824.51 per hectare, or Rs. 445.68 per square metre.

Dissatisfied, the claimants filed a reference under Section 18 of the Act. The reference was registered as L.A. Reference No. 28 of 2007 before the District Judge, Haridwar. The claimants contended that land in the area was being sold at Rs. 20,000 to Rs. 30,000 per square metre, that the SLAO had wrongly selected a lower-value exemplar, and that the Land Acquisition Manual required the highest-value exemplar to be adopted. The Reference Court framed four issues, including whether the compensation was insufficient and whether the 20% deduction was proper. By its judgment dated 18 December 2013, the 5th Additional District Judge, Haridwar dismissed the reference, holding the rate of Rs. 445.68 per square metre and the 20% deduction to be proper.

The Appellants' Case Before the High Court

Before the High Court, Mr. Tapan Singh, counsel for the appellants, pressed two main grievances. First, the Reference Court had wrongly discarded two sale deeds placed on record by the claimants. The first was a sale deed dated 22 September 2005 for 120.81 square metres in Village Puhana, Gata No. 234 Mi., registered in the Sub-Registrar's office, Roorkee, reflecting a rate of Rs. 750 per square metre. The second was a sale deed dated 2 July 2005 (registered 7 July 2005) for 1,020 square metres in Village Karondi, Pargana Bhagwanpur, Tehsil Roorkee, reflecting a rate of Rs. 960 per square metre. Both, counsel submitted, were proximate to the acquired land and abutted the G.T. Road.

Second, on the 20% deduction, counsel pointed to the SLAO's own inspection note of 8 July 2006, which recorded that the land was “totally developed and is having building potential.” Since the land was already developed, counsel argued, no deduction for development charges was warranted.

The appellants relied on several Supreme Court decisions, including Mehrawal Khewaji Trust v. State of Punjab, (2012) 5 SCC 432, for the proposition that the highest exemplar among bona fide transactions must be preferred; Special Land Acquisition Officer v. M.K. Rafiq Saheb, (2011) 7 SCC 714, for the principle that sale instances of small pieces of land can guide compensation determination; Satish v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2009) 14 SCC 758, for the methodology of valuation under Section 23; and Hiralal Motilal Parikh v. Special LAQ Officer, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2338, for the position that a sale deed proximate to the Section 4 notification date can be relied upon as an exemplar.

Respondents' Defence of the Award

Dr. Kartikey Hari Gupta, counsel for respondent no. 2 Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd., defended the SLAO's approach on both counts. On the exemplar, he submitted that the sale deed dated 22 September 2005 post-dated the newspaper publication of the Section 4(1) notification on 10 September 2005 and therefore could not be relied upon under Section 23(1) of the Act, which mandates that market value be assessed as of the date of publication of the Section 4(1) notification. He further submitted that the sale deed covered only 120.81 square metres, far too small to reflect the market value of a 154,811 square metre acquisition. The second sale deed, dated 2 July 2005, pertained to Village Karondi, a different village from the acquired land in Village Puhana, and was therefore rightly discarded.

On the deduction, counsel relied on Major General Kapil Mehra v. Union of India, (2015) 2 SCC 262, Union of India v. Premlata, (2022) 7 SCC 745, and Lal Chand v. Union of India, (2009) 15 SCC 769, to submit that deductions ranging from 20% to 75% are permissible for large undeveloped agricultural land with development potential, and that the SLAO's 20% deduction was, if anything, conservative. He also relied on Ranvir Singh v. Union of India, (2005) 12 SCC 59, for the settled position that sale price of a small piece of land cannot be the basis for determining market value of a large stretch. The State's Standing Counsel, Mr. I.P. Kohli, adopted the submissions of respondent no. 2.

The High Court's Reasoning on the Exemplar Sale Deed

Justice Siddhartha Sah identified two points for determination: whether the Reference Court was justified in upholding the market value at Rs. 445.68 per square metre, and whether the 20% deduction was justifiable.

On the first point, the Court examined both sale deeds relied upon by the appellants. The sale deed dated 22 September 2005 pertained to the same Village Puhana and abutted the G.T. Road and the acquired land. However, it covered only 120.81 square metres. The Court acknowledged the Supreme Court's clarification in Hiralal Motilal Parikh that a bona fide sale proximate to the Section 4 notification date can be relied upon as an exemplar. But it held that the question of whether a sale deed for such a small area could truly reflect the market value of a 15.4811 hectare acquisition remained open.

The sale deed dated 2 July 2005 was for 1,020 square metres in Village Karondi, approximately 1 km from the acquired land, at Rs. 960 per square metre. The Court noted that this was a different village and that the acquired land was in Village Puhana.

The Court placed weight on the SLAO's methodology: all 36 sale deeds from the three years prior to the Section 4 notification were examined individually; the selected exemplar — the sale deed between Avdesh Kumar and Rajnikant Gupta dated 3 June 2005 for Khasra No. 284/2, Village Puhana, covering 718 square metres — was the largest area sale deed among the 36 and was situated on the opposite side of the same G.T. Road as the acquired land. The Court also noted that PW3 Akhtar, a witness for the claimants, had admitted in cross-examination that the acquired land and its surroundings were agricultural land on which actual agriculture was being carried out at the time of acquisition.

The Court held that while the appellants' arguments might have succeeded had the acquisition been of a smaller piece of land, the acquisition here was of a very large tract. The land was being used for agriculture at the time and had future commercial potential. In those circumstances, the SLAO and the Reference Court had rightly concluded that Rs. 445.68 per square metre reflected the correct market value. Point for Determination No. 1 was answered against the appellants.

The High Court's Reasoning on the 20% Deduction

On the second point, the appellants argued that the SLAO's own inspection note described the land as fully developed with building potential, making any development deduction unjustified. They contended that development charges are appropriate only where roads, parks, drainage, electricity lines and similar infrastructure need to be created, and that no such development was required for a sub-station.

The Court rejected this. It returned to the admission by PW3 Akhtar that the acquired land was agricultural land being used for agriculture at the time of acquisition. For the land to be used as a 400 KV sub-station, Power Grid Corporation would need to develop it — laying drains, roads, and other infrastructure. On that basis, the 20% deduction was reasonable. The Court noted that Supreme Court precedent permits deductions ranging from 30% to 75% depending on location and purpose, making 20% a conservative figure. The SLAO and the Reference Court had committed no error. Point for Determination No. 2 was also answered against the appellants.

Outcome

The High Court dismissed First Appeal No. 43 of 2014. The judgment and order dated 18 December 2013 of the 5th Additional District Judge, Haridwar in Reference Case No. 28 of 2007 — Haneef (Deceased) Through Legal Heirs v. State of Uttarakhand and Others — was affirmed. The original record was directed to be transmitted to the court concerned.