IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 30.03.2026 HARBHAJAN SINGH (SINCE DECEASED) TH. HIS LR. AND ORS.

.....Appellants Vs STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS. ..Respondent(s)

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA Present: Mr. Sanjeev Sharma, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Sandeep Singh, Advocate for the appellants.

Mr. Puru Jarewal, D.A.G., Punjab.

Mr. Rajbir Singh, Advocate for respondent Nos.7 to 9.

****

HARKESH MANUJA, J. (Oral)

[1]. By way of present appeal, challenge has been laid to the judgment dated 31.08.2021 passed by the learned Addl. District Judge, Tarn Taran, (hereinafter to be referred as the ‘Reference Court’), whereby reference petition preferred at the instance of appellant(s)/landowner(s) having invoked Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘the 1894 Act’), was dismissed.

[2]. Briefly stating, one S. Parduman Singh was the owner of land measuring 872 Kanals 18 Marlas forming part of the revenue estate of village Goindwal, Tehsil and District Tarn Taran. Parduman Singh had two sons, namely, Bawa Gurmukh Singh and Bawa Maharaj Singh. After the death of Parduman Singh, the aforementioned land was inherited by his two sons in equal shares i.e. 436 Kanals 9 Marlas each. Further, Bawa Gurmukh Singh had four sons namely Bawa Bir Singh, Bawa Harbhajan Singh, Bawa Kulwant Singh and Bawa Yoginder Singh. Thus, the four sons of Bawa Gurmukh Singh inherited 109 Kanals 02 Marlas (approx.) land each. On the other hand, Bawa Maharaj Singh had only one son, namely, Bawa Randhir Singh. The pedigree table which is relevant for the adjudication of the case in hand is extracted hereunder:-

S. Parduman Singh ___________________________________

Bawa Gurmukh Singh Bawa Maharaj Singh _____________________________________

Bawa Bir Bawa Harbhajan Bawa Kulwant Bawa Yoginder Randhir Singh Singh Singh Singh Singh [3]. Later, vide notification dated 15.06.1988 issued under Section 4 of the the 1894 Act, 374 Kanals 15 Marlas of land out of the aforesaid 872 Kanals 18 Marlas of land originally owned by S. Parduman Singh forming part of revenue estate of village Goindwal, Tehsil and District Tarn Taran, was acquired followed by an award dated 07.12.1989 passed by the Land Acquisition Collector (for short ‘the LAC’). The grouse of the appellant(s) was that, Bawa Harbhajan Singh, being an owner to the extent of 1/8^th share of total acquired land of 374 Kanals 15 Marlas, was entitled for proportionate component of the compensation awarded.

[4]. Since the predecessor-in-interest of the appellant(s) was never paid any compensation in terms of original award dated 07.12.1989 passed by the LAC, being aggrieved, he sought reference under Section 30 of the 1894 Act which was forwarded to the learned Reference Court, wherein the private respondents filed application for its dismissal while stating that Bawa Harbhajan Singh had already sold more than his share in the joint holdings and thus, was not entitled for award of compensation. On the said application moved at the instance of the private respondents, the learned Reference Court vide order dated 31.08.2021 rejected the claim made by the appellant(s). Aggrieved thereof, the present appeal was filed at the instance of appellant(s).

[5]. Impugning the aforesaid order, learned Senior counsel representing the appellant(s) submits that as per the Award passed by the LAC on 07.12.1989, the payment was to be made based on the records of rights available at the time of acquisition i.e. jamabandi for the year 1987-88. He thus, submits that once, as per the original revenue record in the form of jamabandi for the year 1987-88 Bawa Harbhajan Singh was recorded as one of the co-sharer, he was entitled for award of compensation proportionately to his share in the joint land.

[5.1]. Learned Senior counsel also points out that the acquisition in the present case pertained to specific khasra numbers which were never alienated by Bawa Harbhajan Singh and consequently, he continued to hold hi