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