A land-title dispute does not justify withholding compensation for an acquired structure from its established builder.

In highway acquisition proceedings, the petitioner’s house was identified as Structure No. 35.

The supplementary award recorded him as its constructor and assessed compensation of ₹66,66,000, with an additional 2.5% charge of ₹1,66,650.

The award amount was deposited in a fixed deposit after the Gurdwara Guru Granth Sahib, Bhuntar’s Managing Committee objected to payment, asserting that the property belonged to the Gurdwara and that related litigation was pending.

The petitioner relied on the award, a Patwari’s certificate, and the respondents’ valuer’s report to establish that he had constructed the house.

The Committee relied on civil litigation concerning the land, but the Court noted that the litigation did not seek a declaration or relief concerning ownership of Structure No. 35.

The petitioner sought release of the compensation and accrued interest; the respondents also objected that he had an alternative remedy under the National Highways Act.

Whether the petitioner had established an entitlement to compensation awarded for Structure No. 35, notwithstanding the dispute concerning ownership of the underlying land.

Whether the pending litigation concerning the land justified withholding the structure compensation, including in light of the Committee’s objection to payment.

A building, superstructure, or improvement on acquired land is independently compensable, and the person who establishes an interest in that structure may claim its compensation, even if title to the underlying land is disputed.

An acquisition award identifying a person as the structure’s constructor, supported by official evidence such as a Patwari’s certificate, may establish a prima facie claim; the burden then shifts to a rival claimant to produce cogent evidence of entitlement.

The Court also relied on Union of India v. Tarsem Singh, (2019) 9 SCC 304, for the principle that compulsory-acquisition compensation must be just and fair and must not be discriminatory.

In considering the Committee’s asserted status and the related litigation, the Court referred to the prior proceedings concerning the Sikh Gurudwara Act, 1925, including the finding that the claimed Gurdwara entity had not been constituted in accordance with the Act.

The supplementary award expressly recorded the petitioner as the person who constructed Structure No. 35, and the Patwari’s certificate and the respondents’ valuer’s report supported that finding.

The Committee’s claim related principally to the land; it produced no specific pleading, declaration, or other cogent evidence establishing its ownership of the structure.

The Court therefore treated the petitioner’s claim to structure compensation as distinct from the dispute over land title.

It also considered that the prior proceedings undermined the Committee’s claim to represent a legal entity entitled to the property, and concluded that the pending land litigation did not justify retaining the structure compensation.

The petition was disposed of accordingly, along with any pending applications.