RFA-71-1997 102 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA Nirvikalp Parkash @ Tilak Raj Vij The Collector, Land Acquisition (Urban Estate) Punjab. CORAM: Present: HARKESH MANUJA, J. (ORAL) Award dated Jalandhar 2. acres situated within the revenue estate of acquired vide Notifications dated under Sections 4 & 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short the ‘1894 Act of Residential Urban Estate in the area of revenue estate of Tehsil and District Jalandhar LAC’) passed an Award under Section 11 of the 1894 Act on 1997 (O&M) [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ***** RFA Date of Decision: Nirvikalp Parkash @ Tilak Raj Vij Versus The Collector, Land Acquisition (Urban Estate) Punjab. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA Present: Ms. Ridhima Khindria, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Gunjan Mehta, Addl.A.G., Punjab. -.- HARKESH MANUJA, J. (ORAL) By way of present appeal, challenge has been laid to the Award dated 08.06.1996 passed by the learned Addl. District Judge, Jalandhar (hereinafter to be referred as the ‘ Briefly stating, in the present case, land measuring situated within the revenue estate of acquired vide Notifications dated 05.12.1975 Sections 4 & 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short the 1894 Act’) respectively for the public purpose, namely, “ of Residential Urban Estate in the area of revenue estate of Tehsil and District Jalandhar”. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short, ) passed an Award under Section 11 of the 1894 Act on ] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RFA-71-1997 (O&M) Date of Decision: 29.04.2026 …….Appellant Versus The Collector, Land Acquisition (Urban Estate) Punjab. ..….Respondent HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA s. Ridhima Khindria, Advocate Gunjan Mehta, Addl.A.G., Punjab. By way of present appeal, challenge has been laid to the passed by the learned Addl. District Judge, (hereinafter to be referred as the ‘Reference Court’). Briefly stating, in the present case, land measuring 17.22 situated within the revenue estate of Village Garha, was 05.12.1975 and 11.05.1977 issued Sections 4 & 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short the ’) respectively for the public purpose, namely, “for setting up of Residential Urban Estate in the area of revenue estate of Tehsil The Land Acquisition Collector (for short, ‘the ) passed an Award under Section 11 of the 1894 Act on By way of present appeal, challenge has been laid to the passed by the learned Addl. District Judge, 17.22 was issued Sections 4 & 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short the setting up of Residential Urban Estate in the area of revenue estate of Tehsil the ) passed an Award under Section 11 of the 1894 Act on SANJAY GUPTA 2026.05.06 18:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RFA-71-1997 30.12.1977 assessing the market value of t Aggrieved by the said determination, a reference was preferred, pursuant to which the learned Reference Court enhanced the compensation vide Award dated 12.03.1980. compensation with respect to certain houses, tubewells and standing on the acquired land is concerned, the LAC passed separate award on 19.10.1982 whereby, only in respect of the structures on the acquired land, and no compensation was awarded for movable or immovable items. 3. LAC, landowners invoked Reference under Section 18 of the 1894 Act, which decision dated was preferred at the instance of 4. through the paper 5. Jamabandis A-3 to A- tubewell along with a room three brothers, namely, Nirbhai Parkash, Om Parkash and Alakh Parshad, other khasra number reflecting the existence of any additional tubewell or structure. 1997 (O&M) [2] 30.12.1977 assessing the market value of t Aggrieved by the said determination, a reference was preferred, pursuant to which the learned Reference Court enhanced the compensation vide Award dated 12.03.1980. compensation with respect to certain houses, tubewells and standing on the acquired land is concerned, the LAC passed separate award on 19.10.1982 whereby, only in respect of the structures on the acquired land, and no compensation was awarded for movable or immovable items. Dissatisfied with the supplementary LAC, landowners invoked Reference under Section 18 of the 1894 Act, which was dismissed by the learned Reference Court vide its decision dated 08.06.1996. Aggrieved thereof, the present appeal ferred at the instance of appellant I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the paper-book as well as records. A perusal of the revenue record Jamabandis (Exhibits A-1 and A-2) and -6), shows that in Khasra No. 37//26 there existed only one tubewell along with a room owned by the appellant along with his three brothers, namely, Nirbhai Parkash, Om Parkash and Alakh Parshad, each having 1/4th share therein. There other khasra number reflecting the existence of any additional tubewell or structure. ] 30.12.1977 assessing the market value of the acquired land. Aggrieved by the said determination, a reference was preferred, pursuant to which the learned Reference Court enhanced the compensation vide Award dated 12.03.1980. Insofar as the compensation with respect to certain houses, tubewells and trees standing on the acquired land is concerned, the LAC passed separate award on 19.10.1982 whereby, compensation was granted only in respect of the structures on the acquired land, and no compensation was awarded for movable or immovable items. supplementary Award passed by the LAC, landowners invoked Reference under Section 18 of the 1894 by the learned Reference Court vide its Aggrieved thereof, the present appeal appellant-landowner. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone book as well as records. A perusal of the revenue record in the form of 2) and Khasra Girdawaris (Exhibits that in Khasra No. 37//26 there existed only one owned by the appellant along with his three brothers, namely, Nirbhai Parkash, Om Parkash and Alakh each having 1/4th share therein. There was no entry in any other khasra number reflecting the existence of any additional he acquired land. Aggrieved by the said determination, a reference was preferred, pursuant to which the learned Reference Court enhanced the Insofar as the trees standing on the acquired land is concerned, the LAC passed compensation was granted only in respect of the structures on the acquired land, and no Award passed by the LAC, landowners invoked Reference under Section 18 of the 1894 by the learned Reference Court vide its Aggrieved thereof, the present appeal I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone in the form of Exhibits that in Khasra No. 37//26 there existed only one owned by the appellant along with his three brothers, namely, Nirbhai Parkash, Om Parkash and Alakh no entry in any other khasra number reflecting the existence of any additional SANJAY GUPTA 2026.05.06 18:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RFA-71-1997 5.1. 19.10.1982, granted compensation for one room situated in Khasra No. 37//26. The machinery electric motor, switchboard, starter etc. were specifically directed to be removed by the owners for their own use, and no compensation was awarded for the same. Parshad one of the b petition which was partly allowed and the learned Reference Court awarded enhanced compensation in respect of the said two power rooms in existence in Khasra No. 37//26. 5.2. statement of the appellant along with his brothers was recorded whereby, Alakh Parshad in his statement dated 19.08.1994 (Ex. A 18), before the learned District Judge, Jalandhar admitted that the learned Reference Court awarded the comp rooms and he had no objection in case the net amount of the compensation awarded in respect of the two power rooms was apportioned amongst all the four brothers in equal shares. The other three brothers, including the appellant, by their joint s 19.08.1994 (Ex. A that they had no objection in case the payment was made to their brother Alakh Parshad after deducting their shares of compensation of the two rooms. In such circumstances, i admitted position that all the co 1997 (O&M) [3] The record further shows that the LAC, vide award dated 19.10.1982, granted compensation for one room situated in Khasra No. 37//26. The machinery and other removable items such as electric motor, switchboard, starter etc. were specifically directed to be removed by the owners for their own use, and no compensation was awarded for the same. Dissatisfied with the said award, Alakh Parshad one of the brothers of the appellant, preferred reference petition which was partly allowed and the learned Reference Court awarded enhanced compensation in respect of the said two power rooms in existence in Khasra No. 37//26. During the pendency of the executi statement of the appellant along with his brothers was recorded whereby, Alakh Parshad in his statement dated 19.08.1994 (Ex. A 18), before the learned District Judge, Jalandhar admitted that the learned Reference Court awarded the comp rooms and he had no objection in case the net amount of the compensation awarded in respect of the two power rooms was apportioned amongst all the four brothers in equal shares. The other three brothers, including the appellant, by their joint s 19.08.1994 (Ex. A-19) also admitted the statement of Alakh Parshad that they had no objection in case the payment was made to their brother Alakh Parshad after deducting their shares of compensation of the two rooms. In such circumstances, i admitted position that all the co-sharers, including the present ] s that the LAC, vide award dated 19.10.1982, granted compensation for one room situated in Khasra and other removable items such as electric motor, switchboard, starter etc. were specifically directed to be removed by the owners for their own use, and no compensation Dissatisfied with the said award, Alakh rothers of the appellant, preferred reference petition which was partly allowed and the learned Reference Court awarded enhanced compensation in respect of the said two power rooms in existence in Khasra No. 37//26. During the pendency of the execution thereof, a joint statement of the appellant along with his brothers was recorded whereby, Alakh Parshad in his statement dated 19.08.1994 (Ex. A 18), before the learned District Judge, Jalandhar admitted that the learned Reference Court awarded the compensation qua two power rooms and he had no objection in case the net amount of the compensation awarded in respect of the two power rooms was apportioned amongst all the four brothers in equal shares. The other three brothers, including the appellant, by their joint statement dated 19) also admitted the statement of Alakh Parshad that they had no objection in case the payment was made to their brother Alakh Parshad after deducting their shares of compensation of the two rooms. In such circumstances, it is evident that it is an sharers, including the present s that the LAC, vide award dated 19.10.1982, granted compensation for one room situated in Khasra and other removable items such as electric motor, switchboard, starter etc. were specifically directed to be removed by the owners for their own use, and no compensation Dissatisfied with the said award, Alakh rothers of the appellant, preferred reference petition which was partly allowed and the learned Reference Court awarded enhanced compensation in respect of the said two power on thereof, a joint statement of the appellant along with his brothers was recorded whereby, Alakh Parshad in his statement dated 19.08.1994 (Ex. A- 18), before the learned District Judge, Jalandhar admitted that the two power rooms and he had no objection in case the net amount of the compensation awarded in respect of the two power rooms was apportioned amongst all the four brothers in equal shares. The other tatement dated 19) also admitted the statement of Alakh Parshad that they had no objection in case the payment was made to their brother Alakh Parshad after deducting their shares of compensation t is evident that it is an sharers, including the present SANJAY GUPTA 2026.05.06 18:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RFA-71-1997 appellants admitted their respective shares and consented to apportionment of the compensation in equal shares, however, the appellant any evidence for further enhancement beyond the assessment 5.3. construction of outlets, electric motor, pipes, trees a incurred on boring of tubewell, the evidence led by the appellants is wholly unreliable. The report land submitted by AW architect, same with any cogent material. No documentary evidence such as bills, receipts, vouchers or any proof of expenditure record to establish either the existence of such items at the time of acquisition or the cost i 5.4. acquisition matters must be comparable sale instances or other credible material on mere compensation lies upon the claimant and cogent evidence, the claim cannot be granted merely on assertions. Furthermore, items such as motors, pipes, wires and similar equipment are, by their very nature, remo record shows that the owners were permitted to remove the same. 1997 (O&M) [4] appellants admitted their respective shares and consented to apportionment of the compensation in equal shares, however, the ppellants/claimants who filed the pres any evidence for further enhancement beyond the assessment made by the LAC. As regards the claim for additional items such as alleged construction of outlets, electric motor, pipes, trees a incurred on boring of tubewell, the evidence led by the appellants is wholly unreliable. The report pertaining to structures existing over the submitted by AW-3, namely, Parmod Chander Bhardwaj, , does not inspire confidence same with any cogent material. No documentary evidence such as bills, receipts, vouchers or any proof of expenditure record to establish either the existence of such items at the time of acquisition or the cost incurred thereon. It is well-settled that determination of market value in land acquisition matters must be based comparable sale instances or other credible material mere speculation. The burden to compensation lies upon the claimant and cogent evidence, the claim cannot be granted merely on assertions. Furthermore, items such as motors, pipes, wires and similar equipment are, by their very nature, remo record shows that the owners were permitted to remove the same. ] appellants admitted their respective shares and consented to apportionment of the compensation in equal shares, however, the the present appeal(s) failed to adduce any evidence for further enhancement qua the structure or tubewell LAC. As regards the claim for additional items such as alleged construction of outlets, electric motor, pipes, trees and expenses incurred on boring of tubewell, the evidence led by the appellants is pertaining to structures existing over the , namely, Parmod Chander Bhardwaj, does not inspire confidence as he failed to substantiate the same with any cogent material. No documentary evidence such as bills, receipts, vouchers or any proof of expenditure was produced on record to establish either the existence of such items at the time of ncurred thereon. settled that determination of market value in land on tangible evidence such as comparable sale instances or other credible material and cannot rest he burden to prove entitlement to and in the absence of credible and cogent evidence, the claim cannot be granted merely on assertions. Furthermore, items such as motors, pipes, wires and similar equipment are, by their very nature, removable, and the record shows that the owners were permitted to remove the same. appellants admitted their respective shares and consented to apportionment of the compensation in equal shares, however, the (s) failed to adduce the structure or tubewell As regards the claim for additional items such as alleged nd expenses incurred on boring of tubewell, the evidence led by the appellants is pertaining to structures existing over the , namely, Parmod Chander Bhardwaj, failed to substantiate the same with any cogent material. No documentary evidence such as produced on record to establish either the existence of such items at the time of settled that determination of market value in land on tangible evidence such as and cannot rest e entitlement to n the absence of credible and cogent evidence, the claim cannot be granted merely on assertions. Furthermore, items such as motors, pipes, wires and vable, and the record shows that the owners were permitted to remove the same. In SANJAY GUPTA 2026.05.06 18:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RFA-71-1997 such circumstances, where record any with the assessed market value, this Court reassessing surmises, or hypothetical assumptions. or illegality in the the present case. 6. hereinabove, the present appeal being devoid of merits, is hereby dismissed upheld. 7. disposed of. 29.04.2026 sanjay 1997 (O&M) [5] such circumstances, where the parties were not any cogent and reliable evidence warranting with the assessed market value, this Court reassessing compensation merely on the basis of conjectures, surmises, or hypothetical assumptions. or illegality in the award passed by the learned Reference Court in the present case. As such, in the wake of the discussion made hereinabove, the present appeal being devoid of merits, is hereby dismissed and the award passed by the learned Reference Court is Pending misc. application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. .2026 Whether speaking/reasoned? Whether Reportable? ] the parties were not able to place on cogent and reliable evidence warranting any interference with the assessed market value, this Court would not be justified in compensation merely on the basis of conjectures, surmises, or hypothetical assumptions. Thus, there was no infirmity by the learned Reference Court in As such, in the wake of the discussion made hereinabove, the present appeal being devoid of merits, is hereby and the award passed by the learned Reference Court is Pending misc. application(s), if any, shall also stand (HARKESH MANUJA) JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned? Yes/No Yes/No able to place on interference would not be justified in compensation merely on the basis of conjectures, infirmity by the learned Reference Court in As such, in the wake of the discussion made hereinabove, the present appeal being devoid of merits, is hereby and the award passed by the learned Reference Court is Pending misc. application(s), if any, shall also stand (HARKESH MANUJA) SANJAY GUPTA 2026.05.06 18:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document