Leases of wakf property exceeding three years without prior board sanction are void, rendering the lessee a deemed trespasser ineligible for land value-based compensation, entitled only to a modest percentage for displacement.

***

DEEPAK GUPTA, J.

Present two appeals arise out of the same award dated 18.12.1996 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Panipat, whereby the reference filed under Section 18 & 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was partly allowed and the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Collector was enhanced from ₹1.5 lacs - ₹ 2 lacs per acre (different categories) to ₹81/- per sq. yd. along with all statutory benefits. Besides, compensation was directed to be apportioned amongst appellant - Punjab Waqf Board to the extent of 25%, and to the occupant – respondent No. 3 to the extent of 75%.

2. In RFA 1791-1997, appellant prays for enhancement; whereas, in RFA 1792-1997, appellant has challenged the apportionment.

3. On perusal of the records, it emerges that pursuant to statutory notifications dated 23.02.1989 under Section 4, followed by declaration under notification dated 22.02.1990 under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, the land measuring 6 Bighas 19 Biswas situated in Patti Taraf Insar, Panipat, owned by the appellant Punjab Wakf Board and occupied by respondent No.3, along with other land, was acquired by the State of Haryana for public purpose, namely - development and utilization of land as residential & commercial Sector 13 of Haryana Urban Development Authority, Panipat.

4. Land Acquisition Collector (LAC) vide his award dated 21.02.1992, awarded compensation of ₹1.5 lacs - ₹ 2 lacs per acre for different categories of land apart from statutory benefits.

5. Appellant Punjab Wakf Board sought reference under Section 18 & 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, claiming higher market value. It was further pleaded that respondent No. 3 was tenant under the appellant only on the area of 390 sq.yd with effect from 01.11.1984 but was in possession of entire land. Reference of appellant was sent by LAC to the reference Court under Sections 18 and 30 of the Land Acquisition Act.

6. The reference Court of learned Additional District Judge, Panipat vide his award dated 18.12.1996, assessed the market value of the acquired land to be ₹ 81/- per square yard along with solatium and other statutory benefits. Reference Court also held the owner Punjab Wakf Board to be entitled to 25% of the compensation amount; whereas, the respondents No.3 was held entitled to 75% of the compensation amount.

7. Not satisfied with the aforesaid award of the reference Court, the land owner-Punjab Wakf Board filed present appeals seeking enhancement in the market value of the acquired land. The appellant further pleaded that respondent No.3 was lessee on limited area but after the expiry of the lease period, had become unauthorized occupant and as such, he was not entitled for any compensation amount out of the awarded amount.

8. Respondent No. 3 opposed the appeals to the extent of apportionment.

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

10. 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 RFA No. 1379 of 1994 titled ‘Nand Lal & Ors. v. State of Haryana & another’ decided on 31.08.2007, which pertain to acquisition under the same notification.

11. Given the candid concession and the principle that a coordinate bench’s decision on identical acquisitions is binding for determination of market value, the market value is fixed at ₹139 per sq. yard, payable with solatium and other statutory benefits. The appellant’s plea for a markedly higher figure cann