development is faster, demand for land is high and construction activities are going on all around, escalation in market price would be at a much higher rate as comparing to rural areas. In some pockets in big cities, due to rapid development and high demand for land, escalations in prices had touched even 30 per cent to 50 per cent or more, per year, during nineties. Similarly, in remote rural areas, where there was no chance of any development and hardly any buyers, prices stagnated for years and rose marginally at a nominal rate of 1 or 2 per cent per annum. Thus there is a significant difference in increase of market value of land in urban/semi-urban areas vis-a-vis rural areas. Court said, if increase in market value in urban/semi-urban areas is about 10 to 15 per cent per annum, corresponding increases in rural areas would, at the best, be only around half of it, i.e. 5 to 7 per cent. If, there is any special reason for applying higher rate of increase that may be considered in the light of special facts and evidence brought before Court in this regard. Consequently, Supreme Court held that 7.5 per cent per annum appreciation would be sufficient and reasonable to determine market value of acquired land. Then, Court also considered that acquired land, though relates to common acquisition proceedings, but situate in different villages. It was also evident that valuation was different in different villages and it gives rise to another question “whether two sets of villages ought to be given different treatment or be clubbed and put at the same level for the purpose of payment of compensation for land acquired under Act, 1894”. After considering sale exemplars and other evidence, Court held that market value of land acquired in Villages Bas Kusla, Bas Haria and Dhana, should be same i.e. Rs.28.77 lakhs per acre, for Villages Naharpur Kasan and Kasan, market value was determined at Rs.37.54 lakhs per acre and for Village Manesar, it was determined at Rs.56.31 lakhs per acre.
