Vidya Sagar Vs State of Haryana & Ors.. — Land Acquisition | Punjab & Haryana HC (2026)

Vidya Sagar Vs State of Haryana & Ors.. — Land Acquisition | Punjab & Haryana HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Appeal allowed; impugned award modified — market value enhanced to ₹147/- per square yard along with all statutory benefits, and the entire compensation payable exclusively to the appellant (through his legal representatives, equally shared amongst his widow and two sons), without any apportionment in favour of respondent No.3; pending application(s) disposed of.

Issue for consideration

Whether the market value of the acquired land, fixed by the Reference Court at ₹140/- per square yard, should be enhanced. +1 more

Court's answer

Since the land is covered by the same acquisition adjudicated in Gulab Singh (decided 24.07.2008) at ₹147/- per square yard, and that judgment attained finality, the principle of parity requires the same rate; the market value is enhanced to ₹147/- per square yard along with all statutory benefits.

Ratio / Principle

The appellant's unrebutted PW-1 testimony of continuous possession and self-cultivation, corroborated by the jamabandi for 1993-94 recording him as owner in possession, supported his claim of exclusive ownership of the acquired land.

Key takeaways

A mere stray or unexplained entry in the revenue record, without supporting evidence of actual possession or tenancy, cannot be the sole basis for depriving the true owner of compensation; apportionment depends upon proof of lawful and settled possession and the nature of rights held.ratio¶10
Respondent No.3 neither asserted nor proved any right, did not seek an independent reference under Section 30 and did not contest the proceedings despite service; he had no legally enforceable right or interest in the acquired land, and the Reference Court committed a manifest error in mechanically applying the ratio of Mangat Ram without examining whether he had established any subsisting right.ratio¶12

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Land Acquisition Act, 1894 — Section 54 appeal (RFA No.790 of 2008) by landowner Vidya Sagar (since deceased, through LRs) against Reference Court award dated 20.10.2007 (Additional District Judge, Panipat) which had valued the acquired 2 kanal 11 marla at Panipat (notification dated 23.10.1989 under Section 4; declaration dated 22.10.1990 under Section 6; for Sector 25 Part-II, Panipat) at ₹140/- per square yard and apportioned compensation 25% to the owner and 75% to respondent No.3 Mai Chand on account of a 'gair Marusi' tenant entry. Held: (i) the same acquisition having been adjudicated in Gulab Singh v. State of Haryana (RFA No.19 of 1995, decided 24.07.2008) at ₹147/- per square yard, which judgment attained finality, the principle of parity required enhancement of market value to ₹147/- per square yard along with all statutory benefits; (ii) a mere stray or unexplained revenue-record entry, without supporting evidence of actual possession or tenancy, cannot be made the sole basis for depriving the true owner of compensation — apportionment depends upon proof of lawful and settled possession (Haryana Wakf Board v. State of Haryana, 2019 (13) SCC 382, relied upon); respondent No.3 never appeared, led no evidence, did not contest despite service (including substituted mode) and sought no independent reference under Section 30, hence had no legally enforceable right or interest, and the Reference Court's mechanical application of Mangat Ram v. State of Haryana, 1996 PLJ 401, was a manifest error. Appeal allowed: award modified — market value enhanced to ₹147/- per square yard with statutory benefits and the entire compensation payable exclusively to the appellant, equally shared amongst his legal representatives (widow and two sons), without any apportionment in favour of respondent No.3.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

RFA No.790 of 2008

Vidya Sagar (since deceased) through LRs

. . . Appellant

vs.

State of Haryana and others . . . . Respondents

Reserved on: March 16, 2026 Pronounced on: March 18, 2026 Pronounced fully/opera6ve part : Fully

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA

Argued By:- Mr. Ashwani Talwar, Sr. Advocate with

Ms. Vaishnavi Sikka and

Mr. Deepak Goyat, Advocate for the appellant.

Mr. Gaurav Garg, AAG, Haryana.

Service of respondent No.3 already dispensed with vide order dated 29.04.2016.

DEEPAK GUPTA, J.

The present appeal under Sec)on 54 of the Land Acquisi)on Act, 1894 (hereina/er referred to as “the Act”) has been preferred by the appellant–landowner seeking modifica)on of the award dated 20.10.2007 passed by the learned Addi)onal District Judge, Panipat (the Reference Court). Vide the impugned award, the Reference Court assessed the market value of the acquired land at ₹140/- per square yard and further appor)oned the compensa)on to the extent of 25% in favour of the appellant and 75% in favour of respondent No.3 – Mai Chand.

A perusal of the record reveals that the appellant was the recorded owner of land measuring 2 kanal 11 marla comprised in Khewat No.617/562, Khatoni No.738, Rect. No.34, Khasra No.25/2 (1-11), situated in village PaB Taraf Afghan, Tehsil and District Panipat. The said land, along with other land belonging to various landowners, was acquired vide

SARITA RANI 2026.03.18 14:08 I attest to the accuracy of this document/order

RFA No.790 of 2008

2026:PHHC: 042265

no)fica)on dated 23.10.1989 issued under Sec)on 4 of the Act for development of Industrial, Commercial and Transport Nagar area in Sector 25 Part-II, Panipat, which was followed by declara)on dated 22.10.1990 under Sec)on 6 of the Act. The Land Acquisi)on Collector announced Award No.18 dated 25.03.1991 and assessed the market value of the acquired land at different rates depending upon its nature and category. However, since an entry existed in the revenue record showing respondent No.3 – Mai Chand as a ‘ gair Marusi’ tenant, the Collector withheld the payment of compensa)on to the appellant.

Appellant sought reference under Sec)on 18 & 30 of the Act for enhancement of the market value and appor)onment. The Land Acquisi)on Collector, deposited an amount of ₹93,754/- in respect of the acquired land and sent the reference under Sec)ons 18 and 30 of the Act to the Court.

The appellant asserted before the Reference Court that he had always remained exclusive owner in self-cul)va)on of the acquired land and that respondent No.3 had no concern whatsoever with the same. It was specifically pleaded that the entry in favour of respondent No.3 had been wrongly incorporated in the revenue record in connivance with the revenue officials.

Despite service, respondent No.3 failed to appear and was proceeded against ex parte. The Reference Court, upon apprecia)on of the evidence, enhanced the market value to ₹140/- per square yard but, placing reliance upon the judgment in Mangat Ram etc. v. State of Haryana etc. , 1996 PLJ 401 appor)oned the compensa)on by gran)ng 25% to the appellant and 75% to respondent No.3.

6.1 Assailing the said award, learned senior counsel for the appellant has contended that respondent No.3 neither appeared before the Reference Court nor led any evidence to establish his possession or tenancy rights. It is submiIed that there is no entry in the revenue record showing payment of batai or rent, and the unrebuIed tes)mony of the appellant clearly establishes that he was in self-cul)va)on of the land. It is further

SARITA RANI 2026.03.18 14:08 I attest to the accuracy of this document/order

Page 2 of 5

RFA No.790 of 2008

2026:PHHC: 042265

contended that the appor)onment made by the Reference Court is wholly unjus)fied. Reliance has been placed upon Haryana Wakf Board v. State of Haryana and others, 2019 (13) SCC 382, to contend that only a person in seIled and lawful possession can claim appor)onment of compensa)on.

6.2 On the ques)on of market value, it has been argued that the same stands conclusively determined at ₹147/- per square yard by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in RFA No.19 of 1995 ‘Gulab Singh v. State of Haryana’, decided on 24.07.2008, which has aIained finality up to the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

Learned State counsel appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2 fairly concedes that the issue of market value is covered by the judgment in Gulab Singh (supra).

Having heard learned counsel for the par)es and upon careful appraisal of the record, this Court finds that the market value of the acquired land in the present case is liable to be enhanced. It is not in dispute that the land in ques)on is covered by the same acquisi)on and no)fica)on which formed the subject maIer of adjudica)on in Gulab Singh (supra) , wherein the market value was determined at ₹147/- per square yard. The said judgment having aIained finality, the principle of parity requires that similarly situated landowners be granted the same rate. Accordingly, the market value of the acquired land is enhanced to ₹147/- per square yard along with all statutory benefits.

The more conten)ous issue pertains to the appor)onment of compensa)on between the appellant and respondent No.3. The en)re basis of appor)onment by the Reference Court is the entry of respondent No.3 as a gair Marusi tenant in the revenue record. However, the appellant, while appearing as PW-1, categorically deposed that he remained in con)nuous possession and self-cul)va)on of the land and that the same was never leased out to respondent No.3. This tes)mony has remained completely unrebuIed. Furthermore, the jamabandi for the year 1993-94 placed on

SARITA RANI 2026.03.18 14:08 I attest to the accuracy of this document/order

Page 3 of 5

RFA No.790 of 2008

2026:PHHC: 042265

record reflects the appellant as owner in possession, which lends corrobora)on to his stand.

It is well seIled that a mere stray or unexplained entry in the revenue record, without any suppor)ng evidence of actual possession or tenancy, cannot be made the sole basis for depriving the true owner of compensa)on. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Haryana Waqf Board v. State of Haryana (supra) has held that appor)onment in favour of a person in possession depends upon proof of lawful and seIled possession and the nature of rights held by such person.

In the present case, respondent No.3 has neither asserted nor proved any such right. He did not seek any independent reference under Sec)on 30 of the Act, nor did he contest the proceedings before the Reference Court or this Court despite service, including by subs)tuted mode.

These circumstances clearly indicate that respondent No.3 had no legally enforceable right or interest in the acquired land. The Reference Court, therefore, commiIed a manifest error in mechanically applying the ra)o of Mangat Ram (supra) without examining whether respondent No.3 had established any subsis)ng right in the property.

Consequently, it is held that the appellant alone is en)tled to the en)re compensa)on amount, and the appor)onment made by the Reference Court cannot be sustained.

It is also per)nent to note that during the pendency of the present appeal, the sole appellant – Vidya Sagar expired and his legal representa)ves, namely his widow and two sons, have been brought on record. Accordingly, the compensa)on as determined herein shall be payable to and equally shared amongst the legal representa)ves of the deceased appellant.

In view of the foregoing discussion, the present appeal is allowed. The impugned award is modified to the extent that the market value of the acquired land is enhanced to ₹147/- per square yard along with all statutory benefits, and the en)re compensa)on shall be payable exclusively

SARITA RANI 2026.03.18 14:08 I attest to the accuracy of this document/order

Page 4 of 5

RFA No.790 of 2008

2026:PHHC: 042265

to the appellant (through his legal representa)ves), without any appor)onment in favour of respondent No.3.

Pending applica)on(s), if any, also stand disposed of.

March 18, 2026	(DEEPAK GUPTA)
Sarita	JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned?	: Yes/No
Whether reportable?	: Yes/No

Uploaded on: March 18, 2026

SARITA RANI 2026.03.18 14:08 I attest to the accuracy of this document/order

Page 5 of 5