SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(P&H) 8582

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
NIHAL SINGH AND ANOTHER – Appellant
Versus
RAJ MOHAN SINGH AND OTHERS – Respondent



##PAGE1##

1 of 5

::: Downloaded on - 12-01-2026 09:14:45 :::

##PAGE2##

CM-1896-CI-2020 in/and 2025:PHHC:176828

RFA No.1800 of 2019 (O&M) and

CM-1325-CI-2022 in/and XOBJR No.23 of 2020

13.01.2010 under Sec(cid:14)on 4 of the Land Acquisi(cid:14)on Act, 1894 (for short, “the

L.A. Act”), followed by No(cid:14)fica(cid:14)on dated 25.01.2010 under Sec(cid:14)on 6, for

public purpose, namely development and u(cid:14)liza(cid:14)on of Sector Roads and Sec-

tors 99 to 115, Gurugram. The Land Acquisi(cid:14)on Collector, vide Award No.83

dated 31.03.2010, assessed the market value of the acquired land at

₹43,00,000/- per acre. Dissa(cid:14)sfied landowners sought references under Sec-

(cid:14)on 18 of the L.A. Act. The Reference Court, in a lead case bearing LAC

No.801 of 2011 (cid:14)tled “Bahadur v. State of Haryana”, decided on 15.03.2014,

enhanced the market value to ₹1,51,75,416/- per acre, besides statutory

benefits.

4. CASE OF THE PARTIES : The present appeal relates to 2/7 share

of land comprised in Rectangle No.52, Killa No.5 (8-0), Khewat No.22, Khata

No.27, village Gopalpur, Gurugram. Ini(cid:14)ally, compensa(cid:14)on in respect of the

said land was released by the Land Acquisi(cid:14)on Collector in favour of Raj

Mohan Singh (respondent No.1 / cross-objector).

5. Appellants Nihal Singh and Hoshiar Singh sought reference un-

der Sec(cid:14)ons 18 and 30 of the L.A. Act, asser(cid:14)ng that they had purchased the

land from Raj Mohan Singh vide registered sale deed dated 07.01.1975, fol-

lowed by Muta(cid:14)on No.601 dated 23.02.1980 (Ex.P-1). It was pleaded that the

muta(cid:14)on was not reflected in subsequent revenue records, resul(cid:14)ng in erro-

neous disbursement of compensa(cid:14)on to respondent No.1. The appellants,

therefore, claimed both (cid:14)tle to compensa(cid:14)on as well as enhancement of

market value.

6. Despite service, respondent No.1 did not appear before the Ref-

erence Court and was proceeded against ex parte. Upon appraisal of docu-

mentary and oral evidence, the Reference Court held the appellants to be the

righCul owners of the acquired land and en(cid:14)tled to compensa(cid:14)on. The mar-

ket value was assessed at ₹1,51,75,416/- per acre, in line with earlier awards.

Consequently, Award dated 29.11.2018 was passed.

Page 2 of 5

2 of 5

::: Downloaded on - 12-01-2026 09:14:46 :::

##PAGE3##

CM-1896-CI-2020 in/and 2025:PHHC:176828

RFA No.1800 of 2019 (O&M) and

CM-1325-CI-2022 in/and XOBJR No.23 of 2020

7. PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THIS COURT : Aggrieved by non-grant of

further enhancement, the appellants filed the present RFA No.1800 of 2019.

Respondent No.1 filed Cross Objec(cid:14)ons No.XOBJR-23 of 2020, seeking seIng

aside of the ex parte proceedings and remand of the maJer, while asser(cid:14)ng

exclusive en(cid:14)tlement to compensa(cid:14)on.

8. Notably, no one appeared on behalf of respondent No.1 / cross-

objector at the (cid:14)me of final hearing, despite specific in(cid:14)ma(cid:14)on having been

sent to his counsel.

9. This Court has heard the arguments advanced by learned coun-

sel for the appellants and learned State counsel, and has perused the record

with their assistance.

ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS

10. (A) En(cid:7)tlement to Compensa(cid:7)on : The Reference Court, on the

basis of cogent evidence, recorded a categorical finding that Raj Mohan Singh

had sold the disputed land to the appellants vide registered sale deed dated

07.01.1975, which was duly followed by Muta(cid:31)on No.601 dated 23.02.1980

(Ex.P-1). Consequently, the appellants became owners in possession of the

acquired land, including the 2/7 share forming the subject maJer of the

present proceedings. The Reference Court further no(cid:14)ced that the Collector

issued a le-er dated 28.01.2013 (Mark-B) to respondent No.1, calling upon

him to refund the compensa(cid:31)on amount wrongly received by him. The

amount was eventually deposited and thereaKer disbursed to the appellants

on 28.09.2018 through RTGS.

11. Addi(cid:14)onally, reliance placed by learned counsel for the appel-

la

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top