Chetan Sarup and Ors. Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Prayer in the present appl i cation moved on behalf of the appli c ants-appellants, is for correcti o n of LA case number in the short or d er/award dated 01.09.1998 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Gurgaon.

¶16

Notice of the application. Learned State Counsel accepts notice on behalf of the

¶17

non-appli c ant/respondent.

¶18

Learned counsel for the applicants-appellant submits that thou g h the learned Reference Co u rt in its short award dated 01.09.19 9 8 has mentioned that LA Case No. 60 of 1997, titled “Chetan S arup Versus State”, is bein g partly accepted, however, on accou n t of an inadvertent typograp h ical error in the title / head-

¶19

DINESH KUMAR 2025.12.02 17:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶20

��

¶21

-2-

¶22

note of the said short order, the LA case number has been incorrectly mentioned as “61 of 1997”.

¶23

I have learned counsel for the parties and gone through the paper-book / relevant record.

¶24

A perusal of the Award dated 01.09.1998 passed by the learned Reference Court would go on to show that LA Case No. 60 of 1997 has been dismissed and LA Case No. 61 of 1997 has been partly accepted, both the cases having been decided by a common order. However, in the head note of short order of LA Case No. 60 of 1997, it has been wrongly typed as “LA Case No. 61 of 1997” and further in the body of short order, LA Case No. 60 of 1997 has been wrongly typed to have been partly accepted.

¶25

In view of the above, the short order/award dated 01.09.1998 in RFA-4841-1998 shall now be read as being passed in LA Case No. 60 of 1997, titled “Chetan Sarup and another Versus The State of Haryana through Collector, Gurgaon” and in short order LA Case No. 60 of 1997 shall be read.

¶26

Though, an application for such correction was required to be moved before the learned Reference Court, however, considering the fact that the applicantsappellants/landowners are awaiting the grant of benefit of similar enhanced compensation as awarded in identically placed landowners for the past almost 36 years, instead of sending the applicants-appellants back to the learned Reference Court, in the interest of justice, the inadvertent typographical error committed in the short order/award dated 01.09.1998, which is clearly traceable

¶27

DINESH KUMAR 2025.12.02 17:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶28

��

¶29

-3-

¶30

from the records itself, is corrected in the present application, as above.

¶31

Application is disposed off .

¶32

MAIN CASE

¶33

The appellants-landowners, by instituting the present appeal preferred under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short “1894 Act”) , are seeking modification of the award dated 01.09.1998 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Gurgaon (hereinafter to be referred as “Reference Court”) whereby their reference petition being registered as LA Case No. 60 of 1997, was dismissed.

¶34

[2] Briefly stating, 4 bigha 17 biswas and 12 biswansi land owned by the appellants-landowners forming part of khasra No. 681 Village Basai, Tehsil and District Gurgaon was acquired vide notification dated 08.03.1989 and 07.03.1990 issued under Sections 4 & 6 of the 1894 Act respectively; followed by an award dated 14.03.1991 passed by the Land Acquisition Collector (for short “LAC”) , whereby the market value was assessed at the rate of Rs. 2 lakhs per acre.

¶35

[3] The appellants-landowners filed writ petition before this Court with respect to 1 bigha 12 biswas of land while alleging certain construction existing over the same. In the meanwhile, with respect to the remaining 3 bigha 5 biswas 12 biswansi of land, the appellants sought reference under Section 18 of the 1894 Act seeking enhancement of compensation. The said reference petition was registered as LA Case No. 60 of 1997. Later, the civil writ

¶36

DINESH KUMAR 2025.12.02 17:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶37

��

¶38

-4-

¶39

petition filed at the instance of appellants-landowners with respect to 1 bigha 12 biswas of land was dismissed by this Court and a separate reference under Section 18 of 1894 Act regarding the said land was filed which was registered as LA Case No. 61 of 1997.

¶40

[4] Learned Reference Court vide award dated 01.09.1998 allowed the LA Case No. 61 of 1997 which pertained to 1 bigha 12 biswas of land and granted the benefit of market value at the rate of Rs. 150/- per square yard in favour of the appellants, besides award of other statutory benefits. However, the LA Case No. 60 of 1997 which related to 3 bigha 5 biswas 12 biswansi of land was declined vide impugned award passed by the learned Reference Court. Relevant para-12 from the said award is extracted hereunder:-

¶41

“ 12. It is pertinent to mention have that the petitioners cleverly filed the above titled two reference i.e. L.A. case No. 61 of 1997 titled as Chetan Saroop Vs. State of Haryana for khasra no. 681 min. only and other L.A. Case No. 60 of 1997 for khasra number 686 to 688 as well / as for khasra No. 681 min. for which, they had already filed the aforesaid reference No. 61 of 1997. Thus, from the above fact, it is cystal clear on the file that the petitioners with their malafide intentions claimed compensation of khasra no. 681 twice by way of both the above titled references separately. Since I have observed that the petitioners are not entitled for enhanced compensation of Khasra no. 686 to 688, accordingly, their reference No. 60 of 1997 titled as Chetan Swaroop vs. State of Haryana is hereby dismissed with costs of Rs. 1000/-.”

¶42

[5] I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone

¶43

through the paper-book / relevant record.

¶44

DINESH KUMAR 2025.12.02 17:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶45

��

¶46

-5-

¶47

[6] As a matter of fact, the learned Reference Court has failed to take into account the fact that the two reference petition i.e. LAC No. 60 of 1997 and LAC No. 61 of 1997 though related to land forming forming part of khasra No. 681, yet the same pertained to different parcels of land, i.e. land measuring 3 bigha 5 biswa 12 biswansi and 1 bigha 12 biswa respectively. The learned Reference Court, vide its award dated 01.09.1998, had although allowed the LA Case No. 61 of 1997 which pertained to 1 bigha 12 biswa of land, however, declined the LA Case No. 60 of 1997 pertaining to 3 bigha 5 biswas 12 biswansi of land on the ground that both the petitions under Section 18 of the 1894 Act pertained to khasra No. 681, however, those were filed separately by the appellants-landowners for different parcels of land. As such, the observation made by the learned Reference Court was factually incorrect as the area of the two references was distinct and separate.

¶48

[7] Therefore, the findings recorded by the learned Reference Court being unsustainable are hereby set aside. The award dated 01.09.1998 passed by the learned Reference Court is thus modified and the appellants-landowners shall be entitled for grant of the similar amount of compensation i.e. Rs. 150/- per square yard in LA Case No. 60 of 1997 which pertained to 3 bigha 5 biswas 12 biswansi of land forming part of khasra No. 681, District Gurugram.

¶49

[8] At this stage, it may be noticed here that though the reference petition in hand also pertained to some land forming part

¶50

DINESH KUMAR 2025.12.02 17:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶51

��

¶52

-6-

¶53

of three different khasra numbers, wherein the appellantslandowners had claimed their entitlement based on dholidar , however, no substantial evidence to the aforesaid effect has been led in support and thus, the said claim is not pressed by the

¶54

learned counsel for appellants-landowners.

¶55

[9] The appeal is disposed off accordingly.

¶56

[10] Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall stand(s) disposed off.

¶57

November 21, 2025 ( HARKESH MANUJA ) ‘dk kamra’ JUDGE

¶58

DINESH KUMAR 2025.12.02 17:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Chetan Sarup and Ors. v. State of Haryana and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chetan Sarup and Ors. v. State of Haryana and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

State of Haryana through Land Aquisition Collector Vs Inderjit Singh

Bhajan Singh(Deceased) S/O Ganga Singh through His Legal Heirs Vs State of Punjab & Another

Lal Singh Vs State of Haryana and Others

Chater Singh & Ors. Vs State of Haryana

Anand Singh and Ors. Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Bhoop Singh & Ors. Vs State of Haryana & Ors.