Revenue records do not establish title; compensation for structures requires proof of lawful ownership and authorized construction.

The petitioners are the legal heirs of the late Lal Mohan Datta, who was the recorded owner of land acquired by the State under a notification dated 02.11.2017 for the widening of NH-208 under the National Highways Act, 1956.

While compensation for the land was paid to the original owner, a dispute arose regarding the compensation for structures (shops) standing on the acquired land.

The petitioners contended that they constructed the shops and rented them to private respondents (Respondents No. 3-9).

Conversely, the private respondents claimed they constructed the structures at their own expense while continuing as tenants.

A Tehsildar’s report supported the tenants' claim, which the petitioners challenged as perfunctory.

Following a previous High Court direction in WP(C) 711 of 2024 to consider the petitioners' claim, the official respondents rejected the representation on 16.01.2025.

The petitioners then filed the present writ seeking a mandamus for compensation and a reference to arbitration.

1. Whether the petitioners, as landowners, or the private respondents, as tenants, are entitled to the compensation awarded for the structures standing on the acquired land.

2. Whether the dispute regarding the ownership and valuation of the structures should be determined by an Arbitrator under the relevant statutes.

The court applied the principles of justice, equity, and good conscience.

It reiterated the established legal principle that revenue records, such as a Khatian, do not constitute legally enforceable title documents and cannot solely form the basis for paying compensation.

The court emphasized that compensation for structures is contingent upon proving valid title, authorization, or permission from government or local bodies to raise such structures.

Furthermore, the court noted that any person in possession without valid right or title who raises unauthorized construction may be considered a "trespasser" and is not entitled to public funds.

The court examined the conflicting claims: the petitioners relied on their status as landowners and the Khatian, while the tenants relied on the Tehsildar's report and a Tenancy Agreement clause suggesting they bore the construction costs.

The court reasoned that the determination of the "genuine lawful owner" of the structures requires a rigorous evidentiary assessment that cannot be concluded solely via revenue records.

It observed that while the landowner is entitled to land compensation, the structure's compensation belongs only to the party who can prove they raised the structure with valid authorization.

Given the factual disputes and the need for diligence in disbursing public money, the court found it appropriate to refer the matter to specialized adjudication.

The court directed the Arbitrator to examine the case in its entirety, specifically focusing on the eligibility of the parties to receive compensation for the structures and the validity of their supporting documents.

The Arbitrator is ordered to pass a final order in accordance with the law.

Pending applications, if any, were also disposed of.