Waqf Board State of Haryana II. Punjab Waqf Board State of Haryana & Ors. v. Versus RFA No. 1791 of 1997 (O&M)

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 Page N: 2 of 8 RFA Nos. 1791 & 1792-1997 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 cannot be sustained in the face of binding precedent and the parties’ admission.

12. As far as the apportionment of compensation between Punjab Wakf Board on one hand, and respondent No.3 on the other hand is concerned, reference Court, on the basis of evidence on record has observed that respondent No.3 was in possession of the acquired suit land from 1986. It was further found that no notice to him was ever sent by the Punjab Wakf Board for terminating the tenancy or challenging the alleged unauthorised possession over larger area, nor any action was ever taken to eject him.

13.1 It is argued by learned counsel for the appellant-Punjab Wakf Board that the reference Court has gravely fallen in error by awarding 25% of the compensation amount to the lessee-respondent No.3 because the status of the said lessee was that of the non-occupancy tenant. He could not have acquired the right of occupancy tenant over the property held by the Punjab Wakf Board based upon the leases granted to him.

13.2 It is further argued that even if it were assumed that land was given to the respondent No.3 on the year-to-year basis for the purpose of cultivation, Page N: 3 of 8 RFA Nos. 1791 & 1792-1997 no right could accrue to him as per the provisions of Punjab Security of Land Tenure Act, 1953.

13.3 It is also urged that it was not permissible to grant lease for a period of more than three years and as such, if lease was granted exceeding three years, the same was void and no right would accrue to the lessees as per the provisions contained in Section 56 of the Wakf Act, 1995, which is pari materia to the provisions in Section 36F of the Wakf Act, 1954.

13.4 It is contended by ld. counsel that in such like cases, the lessees- respondent No.3 at the most could be granted not more than 10% of the compensation amount considering his long possession and for his displacement. Learned counsel has relied upon Haryana Wakf Board vs. State of Haryana & Ors., 2019 (13) SCC 382, relied by this court in ‘Punjab Wakf Board Ambala Cantt. vs. State of Haryana & Others’ (RFA-1487-1996 decided on 29.09.2025).

14. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.3 argued that due to the long possession of the said respondent and the fact that he was never served any notice for his eviction nor the tenancy was ever terminated, he is entitled to the entire compensation amount. Learned counsel argues further that at least 75% of the compensation amount should be awarded to the respondent, which has rightly been granted by the reference court. Learned counsels have relied upon Inder Prashad vs. Union of India,