(O&M) Dharma Vs State of Haryana & Anothers

As common issues are involved in the captioned appeals, with the consent of both sides, the same are hereby disposed of by this common order. For the sake of brevity and convenience, facts are borrowed from RFA No.44 of 1994 .

¶22

MOHIT KUMAR 2026.07.08 17:15 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.

¶23

RFA-44-1994 (O&M) & RFA-305-1994 -2-

¶24

The appellant through instant appeal is seeking setting aside of order dated 16.04.1993 whereby learned Additional District Judge, Panipat has dismissed their reference petitions.

¶25

The State Government issued notification dated 28.04.1987 under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘ 1894 Act ’) for acquisition of 1322 Kanals 15 Marlas situated in village Dahar, Tehsil Panipat District Karnal (now Panipat) with an intent to construct ash ponds for National Fertilizers Limited. The said notification was followed by notification dated 30.10.1987 issued under Section 6 of 1894 Act.

¶26

The Land Acquisition Collector, Panipat (for short ‘ Collector ’) vide Award dated 29.08.1988, in terms of provisions of 1894 Act, determined compensation payable to landowners. Compensation awarded was ₹50,000/- per acre in respect of Chahi/Nehri land, ₹40,000/- per acre in respect of Barani land and ₹25,000/- per acre in respect of Banjar and Gair Mumkin land. Feeling dis-satisfied from aforesaid award, landowners preferred reference petitions under Section 18 of the 1894 Act seeking reassessment of compensation.

¶27

The landowners as well as State, in support of their contentions, led their evidence. The State attempted to justify market value determined by Collector, however, landowners vehemently pleaded that value of their land has been assessed on lower side.

¶28

The Reference Court, appreciating evidence led by both sides, by impugned common award adjudicated 8 petitions and held that amount awarded by the Collector is just, proper and adequate. The Court further held MOHIT KUMAR that appellant may be in possession but Panchayat is owner of the land. 2026.07.08 17:15 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.

¶29

RFA-44-1994 (O&M) & RFA-305-1994

¶30

-3-

¶31

Learned counsel for the appellants submits that question of title of shamlat deh can be adjudicated by Collector. Reference Court under Haryana Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (for short ‘ 1961 Act ’). Reference Court under Section 30 of 1894 Act could not adjudicate said question.

¶32

On being asked, he submits that question whether land in question was shamlat deh or not was never adjudicated by Authorities constituted under 1961 Act. He is unaware whether payment has already been released in favour of Gram Panchayat or not.

¶33

Learned senior counsel for respondent No.2 submits that respondent No.2 had deposited compensation with Collector. They are also unaware whether Gram Panchayat has got released the said payment or not.

¶34

Heard the arguments and perused the record.

¶35

A Coordinate Bench of this Court in Balwinder Singh and others v. Gram Panchayat and others, 2022(1) RCR (Civil) 119 has clearly held that Reference Court under Section 30 of 1894 Act cannot determine whether disputed land is shamlat deh or not. This question can be determined by Authorities constituted under 1961 Act. Relevant extracts of the judgment read as:

¶36

“12. Keeping in view the aforesaid objective in mind, this Bench is of the considered view that in the facts and circumstances of the present case, it would be appropriate to set aside the judgment under challenge and remit the matter back to the Court. However, at the same time, this Bench cannot overlook the legislative bar to the jurisdiction of the Civil Court under Section 13 of 1961 Act. Hence, the proceedings before the Court will stand adjourned sine die. Any of the parties shall be at liberty to file a suit under Section 11 of the

¶37

MOHIT KUMAR 2026.07.08 17:15 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.

¶38

RFA-44-1994 (O&M) & RFA-305-1994

¶39

-4-

¶40

1961 Act before the Collector for adjudication of their respective claims of right, title or interest. If any of the parties files a suit under Section 11, the Collector shall not only decide the claims of right, title or interest but will also determine their respective shares along with the list of proprietors, within 6 months positively.”

¶41

In the case in hand, the question whether acquired land was shamlat deh or not was never adjudicated by Authorities under 1961 Act. The Revenue Authorities might have released the payment as per revenue entries. This Court cannot comment upon entitlement of Gram Panchayat especially when it is not a party to the lis present before this Court. The appropriate remedy for the appellants is to approach Authorities under 1961 Act seeking declaration that acquired land was not shamlat deh . Upon such declaration, they may avail remedies as permissible by law with respect to awarded compensation. If appellants approach Authority under 1961 Act, the Authority shall decide their case without being influenced by impugned award dated 16.04.1993.

¶42