IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Reserved on: 23.09.2025 Pronounced on : 29.09.2025 I. RFA No. 1487 of 1996 (O&M)

Punjab Wakf Board Ambala Cantt.

…Appellant Versus State of Haryana & Ors.

…Respondents II. Cross-objection No. 19-CI of 1996 Harphool Singh …Cross-objector &

III. Cross-objection No.4-CI of 1997 Tirath Ram …Cross-objector CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Argued by:- Mr. G.S. Bhatia, Advocate For the appellant.

Mr. Gaurav Garg, AAG Haryana For respondent Nos. 1 and 2.

Mr. Adarsh Jain, Advocate For respondent No.3/cross objector Harphool Singh.

Mr. Ranjit Saini, Advocate For respondent No.4/ cross-objector Tirath Ram.

***

DEEPAK GUPTA, J.

Pursuant to statutory notifications under Section 4, followed by another notification under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, the land owned by the appellant Punjab Wakf Board and occupied by respondents No.3 and 4 (cross-objectors herein) as lessees along with other land, was acquired by the State of Haryana for public purpose, namely - development and utilization of land as residential, commercial and industrial Sector 25 Part II of Panipat. Total acquired land was 503.06 acres located in village Taraf Afghan, Panipat, Hadbast No.17, Tehsil Panipat.

2. Land Acquisition Collector (LAC) vide his award No. 8 dated 10.12.1987 for the year 1987-88, awarded compensation of ₹ 45,000/- per acre for chahi Land and ₹ 40,000/- per acre for gair mumkin land.

3. Various landowners including appellant Punjab Wakf Board sought references under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. Reference of appellant was sent by LAC to the reference Court under Sections 18 and 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, by impleading Harphool & Tirath Ram (lessees – cross-objectors herein) as respondents No. 3 & 4 respectively .

4. The reference Court of learned Additional District Judge vide his award dated 07.03.1996, assessed the market value of the acquired land to be ₹ 72/- per square yard along with solatium and other statutory benefits. Reference Court also held the owner Punjab Wakf Board to be entitled to 75% of the compensation amount; whereas, the tenants i.e. respondents No.3 and 4 were held entitled to 25% of the compensation amount. In terms of the mutual settlement arrived at between respondents No. 3 and 4, the 25% share in the total compensation amount was apportioned by holding respondent Tirath Ram entitled to 3/5th thereof, and respondent Harphool Singh entitled to the remaining 2/5th.

5. Not satisfied with the aforesaid award of the reference Court, the land owner-Punjab Wakf Board filed this appeal seeking enhancement in the market value of the acquired land to be not less than ₹ 500/- per square yard. The appellant further pleaded that respondent Nos.3 and 4 were lessees but after the expiry of their lease period, they had become unauthorized occupants and as such, they were not entitled for any compensation amount out of the awarded amount.

6. On the other hand, respondent Nos. 3 and 4 filed separate cross- objections contending therein that they are in long possession of the acquired land at least from Kharif 1975 and used to pay nominal rent to the Punjab Wakf Board. The possession was for more than 10 years and that Punjab Wakf Board had never issued any notice to them terminating their tenancy nor any action was initiated to evict them by the Punjab Wakf Board at any stage and in these circumstances, in view of the legal position explained by Hon’ble Supreme Court, they were entitled to at least 75% of the awarded compensation and 25% to the Punjab Wakf Board.

7. Learned counsel for the parties have been heard and record has been perused.

8. Before this Court, it has been fairly conceded by learned counsel for all the sides that this case is covered by the Division Bench decision in Jogi Ram & Ors. v. State of Haryana (1997 (2) PLR 303), which applied to acquisitions under the same notification. Given the candid concession and the principle that a coordinate bench’s decisio