Punjab & Haryana High Court: Land Acquisition Collector Cannot Decide Compensation Entitlement Disputes; Must Make Reference Under Section 76 of RFCTLARR Act

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that a Land Acquisition Collector cannot adjudicate disputes relating to entitlement or apportionment of compensation under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (RFCTLARR Act). The Court ruled that where a bona fide dispute exists, the Collector is statutorily bound to refer the matter to the competent authority under Section 76 of the Act.

A Division Bench comprising Justice Suvir Sehgal and Justice Vikas Suri passed the judgment in Gurdeep Singh and Another v. State of Punjab and Others (CWP-11737-2026).

Background of the Case

The dispute arose from agreements to sell executed in 2005 and 2006 between late Attar Singh and the petitioners concerning agricultural land situated in Punjab. Although a sale deed was executed in favour of the petitioners, subsequent litigation led to its cancellation by the High Court in contempt proceedings in 2008.

However, while directing cancellation of the sale deed, the High Court had specifically protected the agreements to sell, observing that they would remain intact though in abeyance, leaving it open to the purchasers to seek enforcement after the conclusion of pending litigation.

Subsequently, acquisition proceedings culminated in an award under the RFCTLARR Act in 2021. Respondent No.5, the legal heir of Attar Singh, opted for allotment of plots under the State's Land Pooling Scheme in lieu of monetary compensation.

Claiming rights flowing from the agreements to sell, the petitioners moved an application under Sections 76 and 77 of the RFCTLARR Act seeking reference of the dispute regarding entitlement and apportionment of compensation.

The Land Acquisition Collector, however, rejected the application on February 4, 2026.

Petitioners' Arguments

Appearing for the petitioners, Senior Advocate Chetan Mittal argued that once a dispute regarding entitlement or apportionment of compensation is raised, the Collector has no authority to decide the merits of competing claims.

It was contended that the statutory scheme only empowers the Collector to make a reference to the competent authority and not to adjudicate the dispute himself. The petitioners further submitted that their rights under the agreements to sell had been specifically protected by a judicial order and therefore constituted a genuine dispute warranting a reference.

Respondents' Stand

Senior Advocate Maninder Singh Garcha, appearing for GMADA, and the State authorities supported the Collector's decision. They also referred to a subsequent speaking order passed by the Collector reiterating the earlier decision.

Senior Advocate Amit Jhanji, appearing for respondent No.5, argued that the petitioners possessed no enforceable rights in the acquired property. He submitted that an agreement to sell does not create any proprietary interest or charge over the property and merely gives rise to a right to seek specific performance through a civil suit.

High Court's Findings

The High Court observed that the legal position is well settled that where rival claims regarding entitlement or apportionment of compensation arise, the Collector is not expected to function as the final adjudicatory authority.

The Bench relied upon several judicial precedents, including decisions of the Supreme Court and various High Courts, which consistently hold that once a genuine dispute exists, the statutory authority must make a reference rather than deciding the dispute itself.

The Court noted that the petitioners' agreements to sell had been expressly protected by an earlier judicial order. It further observed that although the petitioners' suit for specific performance had initially been rejected under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, that order had subsequently been set aside by the appellate court and the suit had been restored.

According to the Bench, these circumstances clearly established the existence of a serious and bona fide dispute between the parties.

The Court held that the Collector exceeded his jurisdiction by adjudicating upon the rival claims instead of making a statutory reference under Section 76 of the RFCTLARR Act.

Court's Decision

Allowing the writ petition in part, the High Court set aside the Collector's order dated February 4, 2026.

The matter was remanded to the Land Acquisition Collector, SAS Nagar, Mohali, with directions to make an appropriate reference under the Act to the competent authority within four weeks.

The Court clarified that it had not expressed any opinion on the merits of the rival claims, including the validity and enforceability of the agreements to sell, entitlement to compensation, or the legality of the Letters of Intent issued under the Land Pooling Scheme. All such questions were left open for determination by the competent authority in accordance with law.

Key Takeaway

The judgment reinforces the principle that a Land Acquisition Collector performs a limited statutory function while dealing with disputes concerning compensation entitlement and apportionment. Once a genuine dispute exists, the Collector cannot assume the role of a civil court and must refer the matter to the competent authority under Section 76 of the RFCTLARR Act, 2013.

Case Title: Gurdeep Singh and Another v. State of Punjab and Others

Case No.: CWP-11737-2026 (O&M)

Court: Punjab and Haryana High Court

Bench: Justice Suvir Sehgal and Justice Vikas Suri

Date of Decision: May 29, 2026