(O&M) Radhey Shyam & Anothers Vs State of Haryana & Others

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

I. XOBJR-28-CI-1995 in/and RFA-980-1995

State of Haryana . . . . Appellant

Vs. Sh. Rabinder Nath and another . . . . Respondents II. RFA-1741-1995 (O&M) Radhey Shyam and Others . . . . Appellants Vs. State of Haryana and Others . . . . Respondents

¶5

********

¶6

Reserved on: 07.04.2026 Pronounced on: 09.04.2026 Pronounced fully/opera:ve part: Fully

¶7

¶8

CORAM: HON’BLE MR JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA

¶9

Argued by:- Mr. Gaurav Garg, AAG, Haryana for the appellant in RFA-980-1995 and for the respondent in RFA-1741-1995.

¶10

None for cross-objectors/respondents in RFA-980-1995.

¶11

None for appellants in RFA-1741-1995.

¶12

¶13

DEEPAK GUPTA, J.

¶14

This common judgment disposes of two Regular First Appeals along with a cross-objec/on arising therefrom, all emana/ng from acquisi/on proceedings ini/ated under the provisions of the Land Acquisi/on Act, 1894.

¶15

The factual matrix reveals that land measuring 257.27 acres situated in Village Taraf Afghan, District Panipat, was no/fied for acquisi/on under Sec/on 4 of the Act on 15.12.1982, followed by declara/on under Sec/on 6 on 23.02.1985, for development of residen/al, commercial and industrial sectors in the urban estate of Panipat. Award No. 9 dated 27.09.1985 pertained

¶16

NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.04.09 14:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶17

XOBJR-28-CI-1995 in/and RFA-980-1995; RFA-1741-1995 (O&M)

¶18

to the land, while Award No. 15 dated 27.08.1987 addressed compensa/on for superstructures, tube-wells, and trees standing on the acquired land.

¶19

The present lis, however, is confined not to the valua/on of land but to the adequacy of compensa/on awarded for superstructures and allied components. The Land Acquisi/on Collector assessed compensa/on of ₹1,72,524/- in respect of structures belonging to Rabinder Nath and others, whereas in the case of Gyan Chand and others (represented by Radhey Shyam etc.), compensa/on of ₹18,004/- and ₹6,809/- for tube-well and room, and ₹837.60/- for trees, was awarded. Dissa/sfied with such assessment, the landowners sought references under Sec/on 18 of the Act.

¶20

Upon reference, the Court enhanced compensa/on in the case of Rabinder Nath and others to ₹3,11,025/- (vide award dated 07.02.1995), whereas the reference filed by Gyan Chand and others was dismissed (vide award dated 22.05.1995). This led to filing of RFA No. 980 of 1995 by the State challenging enhancement & cross-objec/ons by the landowners Rabinder Nath etc. seeking further increase; and RFA No. 1741 of 1995 by Radhey Shyam and others seeking enhancement aBer rejec/on of their claim.

¶21

Re: RFA No. 980 of 1995 and Cross-Objec:ons

¶22

The principal ques/on arising for considera/on is whether the Reference Court was jus/fied in relying upon the valua/on report submiCed by PW-1 Sh. H.K. Talwar and in discarding the reports produced by the State authori/es.

¶23

The Reference Court placed reliance upon the report (Ex.P1) prepared by PW-1 Sh. H.K. Talwar, a qualified architect and registered valuer, who had inspected the site on 22.11.1982 - proximate to the relevant date of no/fica/on under Sec/on 4. The eviden/ary value of this report is strengthened by the fact that the assessment was contemporaneous to acquisi/on and based on first-hand inspec/on. The witness also established his creden/als and

¶24

NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.04.09 14:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶25

Page 2 of 4

¶26

XOBJR-28-CI-1995 in/and RFA-980-1995; RFA-1741-1995 (O&M)

¶27

provided detailed tes/mony regarding quality of construc/on, materials used, and extent of structures.

¶28

In contrast, the reports relied upon by the State suffered from serious infirmi/es, which rendered them unreliable. RW-4 admiCedly inspected the site in 1987, i.e., nearly five years aBer the crucial date for determina/on of market value. It is seCled law that compensa/on must be assessed with reference to the date of no/fica/on under Sec/on 4, and any subsequent inspec/on loses eviden/ary relevance unless convincingly correlated. Moreover, his findings regarding the tube-well were based on hearsay (local inquiry) rather than physical verifica/on, thereby diminishing their proba/ve worth.

¶29

Similarly, RW-5 merely proved a report not prepared by him, and the author thereof was not examined. The report contained unexplained cuIngs and lacked founda/onal data regarding specifica/ons and valua/on methodology. Such evidence, being secondary and unsubstan/ated, cannot form a reliable basis for determina/on of compensa/on.

¶30

The law is well-seCled that expert evidence must inspire confidence, be based on sound methodology, and withstand cross-examina/on. The Reference Court, therefore, rightly preferred the tes/mony of a qualified valuer over defec/ve and infirm reports of departmental witnesses. This Court finds no perversity or illegality in such apprecia/on of evidence.

¶31

Further, the deduc/on of 25% applied by the Reference Court on account of non-standard specifica/ons appears to be a reasonable modera/on, balancing the valuer’s es/mate with prac/cal considera/ons. No cogent material has been produced to jus/fy interference or further enhancement.

¶32

Accordingly, the appeal filed by the State lacks merit and is dismissed. The cross-objec/ons also fail, both on account of non-prosecu/on and absence of substan/ve grounds warran/ng further enhancement.

¶33

NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.04.09 14:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶34

Page 3 of 4

¶35

XOBJR-28-CI-1995 in/and RFA-980-1995; RFA-1741-1995 (O&M)

¶36

Re: RFA No. 1741 of 1995

¶37

Insofar as the appeal filed by Radhey Shyam and others is concerned, the same deserves dismissal both on procedural and substan/ve grounds.

¶38

Firstly, none appeared on behalf of the appellants at the /me of hearing, indica/ng lack of prosecu/on. However, even on merits, the claim does not withstand scru/ny. The burden to establish inadequacy of compensa/on lies upon the claimant, who must adduce cogent and reliable evidence. In the present case, the appellants relied solely upon a bald oral asser/on regarding valua/on without examining any expert, valuer, or architect.

¶39

In absence of any substan/ve evidence, the Reference Court was jus/fied in relying upon the unrebuCed evidence led by the State. It is a seCled principle that mere ipsi dixit of a claimant, unsupported by documentary or expert evidence, cannot form the basis for enhancement of compensa/on.

¶40

In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court finds that the awards passed by the Reference Court are based on proper apprecia/on of evidence and seCled principles governing determina/on of compensa/on under the Land Acquisi/on Act, 1894. No ground for interference is made out.

¶41