Nirvikalp Parkash Alias Tilak Raj Vs Land Acquisition Collector Urban Estates Pb.

By way of present appeal, challenge has been laid to the Award d a ted 08.06.1996 passed by t he learned Addl. District Judge, Jalandh a r (hereinafter to be referred a s the ‘ Reference Court ’). 2. Briefly stating, in the pres e nt case, land measuring 17.22 acres situated within the revenue estate of Village Garha, w as acquired vide Notifications dated 05. 1 2.1975 and 11.05.1977 iss u ed under S e ctions 4 & 6 of the Land Ac q uisition Act, 1894 (for short the ‘ 1894 Act ’) respectively for the public purpose, namely, “ for setting up of Resi d ential Urban Estate in the area of revenue estate of Te h sil and Dist r ict Jalandhar ”. The Land Ac q uisition Collector (for short, ‘ the LAC ’) passed an Award under S e ction 11 of the 1894 Act on

¶13

SANJAY GUPTA 2026.05.06 18:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶14

RFA-71-1997 (O&M) [2]

¶15

30.12.1 9 77 assessing the market value of the acquired land. Aggriev e d by the said determinati o n, a reference was prefer r ed, pursuan t to which the learned R e ference Court enhanced the compen s ation vide Award dated 12.03.1980. Insofar as the compen s ation with respect to certain houses, tubewells and tr e es standing on the acquired land is concerned, the LAC pas s ed separat e award on 19.10.1982 wher e by, compensation was granted only in respect of the structures o n the acquired land, and no compen s ation was awarded for mova b le or immovable items. 3. Dissatisfied with the sup p lementary Award passed by the LAC, la n downers invoked Referenc e under Section 18 of the 1 8 94 Act, whi c h was dismissed by the le a rned Reference Court vide its decision dated 08.06.1996. Aggriev e d thereof, the present ap p eal was pref e rred at the instance of appe l lant-landowner. 4. I have heard learned co u nsel for the parties and g o ne through t he paper-book as well as re c ords. 5. A perusal of the rev e nue record in the form of Jamaba n dis (Exhibits A-1 and A-2) a nd Khasra Girdawaris (Exhi b its A-3 to A-6), shows that in Khasra N o . 37//26 there existed only o ne tubewell along with a room owned b y the appellant along with his three br o thers, namely, Nirbhai Pa r kash, Om Parkash and Al a kh Parshad , each having 1/4th share th e rein. There was no entry in a ny other k h asra number reflecting th e existence of any additi o nal tubewell or structure.

¶16

SANJAY GUPTA 2026.05.06 18:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶17

RFA-71-1997 (O&M) [3]

¶18

5.1. The record further shows that the LAC, vide award da t ed 19.10.1 9 82, granted compensation f o r one room situated in Khasra No. 37/ / 26. The machinery and other removable items such as electric m otor, switchboard, starter e tc. were specifically directe d to be remo v ed by the owners for their o wn use, and no compensa t ion was aw a rded for the same. Dissatis f ied with the said award, Al a kh Parshad one of the brothers of the appellant, preferred refere n ce petition w hich was partly allowed a n d the learned Reference C o urt awarded enhanced compensation in respect of the said two po w er rooms in existence in Khasra No. 37//26.

¶19

5.2. During the pendency of the execution thereof, a j o int stateme n t of the appellant along w ith his brothers was recor d ed whereby, Alakh Parshad in his statement dated 19.08.1994 (Ex. A- 18), bef o re the learned District Jud g e, Jalandhar admitted that the learned R eference Court awarded th e compensation qua two po w er rooms a nd he had no objection i n case the net amount of the compen s ation awarded in respect of the two power rooms w as apportio n ed amongst all the four bro t hers in equal shares. The other three br o thers, including the appella n t, by their joint statement dated 19.08.1 9 94 (Ex. A-19) also admitted t he statement of Alakh Pars h ad that the y had no objection in case the payment was made to t h eir brother A lakh Parshad after deducti n g their shares of compensa t ion of the t w o rooms. In such circumst a nces, it is evident that it is an admitted position that all the co- s harers, including the present

¶20

SANJAY GUPTA 2026.05.06 18:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶21

RFA-71-1997 (O&M) [4]

¶22

appellan t s admitted their respecti v e shares and consented to apportio n ment of the compensation in equal shares, however, the appellan t s/claimants who filed the pr e sent appeal(s) failed to add u ce any evidence for further enhanceme n t qua the structure or tube w ell beyond the assessment made by the LAC. 5.3. As regards the claim for a dditional items such as alle g ed construc t ion of outlets, electric mot o r, pipes, trees and expen s es incurred on boring of tubewell, the e v idence led by the appellant s is wholly u n reliable. The report pertaini n g to structures existing over t he land su b mitted by AW-3, namely, Parmod Chander Bhard w aj, architect, does not inspire confidenc e as he failed to substantiate the same with any cogent material. No d ocumentary evidence such as bills, rec e ipts, vouchers or any proof o f expenditure was produced on record t o establish either the existence of such items at the tim e of acquisiti o n or the cost incurred thereon. 5.4. It is well-settled that determination of market value in l a nd acquisiti o n matters must be based on tangible evidence such as compar a ble sale instances or other credible material and cannot r est on me r e speculation. The burd e n to prove entitlement to compen s ation lies upon the claimant and in the absence of credible and co g ent evidence, the claim c annot be granted merely on assertio n s. Furthermore, items suc h as motors, pipes, wires a nd similar e quipment are, by their ve r y nature, removable, and the record s h ows that the owners were p e rmitted to remove the same. In

¶23

SANJAY GUPTA 2026.05.06 18:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶24

RFA-71-1997 (O&M) [5]

¶25

such cir c umstances, where the par t ies were not able to place on record any cogent and reliable evide n ce warranting any interfere n ce with the assessed market value, thi s Court would not be justifie d in reasses s ing compensation merely on the basis of conjectu r es, surmise s , or hypothetical assumptio n s. Thus, there was no infir m ity or illegality in the award passed by t he learned Reference Cour t in the pres e nt case. 6. As such, in the wa k e of the discussion m a de hereina b ove, the present appeal be i ng devoid of merits, is her e by dismiss e d and the award passed by the learned Reference Cou r t is upheld. 7. Pending misc. applicati o n(s), if any, shall also st a nd

¶26

dispose d of.

¶27

29.04.2026 (HARKESH MANUJA) sanjay JUDGE

¶28

Whether speaking/reason e d? Yes/No Whether Reportable? Yes/No

¶29

SANJAY GUPTA 2026.05.06 18:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Nirvikalp Parkash Alias Tilak Raj v. Land Acquisition Collector Urban Estates Pb.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nirvikalp Parkash Alias Tilak Raj v. Land Acquisition Collector Urban Estates Pb.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Om Parkash Vs Charan Kaur

Harbhajan Dass Vs Parkash Kaur and Others

Ashok Kumar Vs Mandeep Sharma and Another

Poonam Bansal and Ors. Vs Municipal Corporation Hisar and Ors.

Surjit Singh and Others Vs State of Punjab and Another

Birender Singh Since Deacased through Lrs Vs State of Haryana and Others