State of Haryana appealed an award by the Reference Court directing compensation payment to respondents. The court held that payment to an unauthorized attorney did not authorize a second payment, dismissing the appeal. Appeal dismissed.
The appeal filed by the State of Haryana is dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
R.F.A. No. 1438 of 1989 [1]
In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh
R.F.A. No. 1438 of 1989(O&M) Date of decision : November 14 , 2008
State of Haryana
.. Appellant
v.
Gurbaz Singh and others
.. Respondents
Present: Mr. Lokesh Sinhal, Additional Advocate General, Haryana for the appellant.
None for the respondents.
Rajesh Bindal J.
The State is in appeal before this Court against the award of the learned court below, whereby the learned Reference Court directed for payment of compensation to the respondents.
Learned counsel for the State submitted that the learned court below has gone wrong in directing payment of compensation to the respondents as, in fact, the compensation for the acquired land had already been paid to Shiv Singh, as attorney of the respondents and attorney to that effect was produced on record as Ex. R1. In view of this position on record, the learned court below should not have directed for payment of compensation second time to the respondents.
Having heard learned counsel for the appellant, I do not find any merit in the present appeal. A perusal of the impugned award shows that the voucher for payment of amount in favour of alleged attorney-Shiv Singh was issued on 30.5.1983, whereas the alleged power of attorney in favour of Shiv Singh was attested by the Oath Commissioner on 3.6.1983. It was further noticed by the learned court below that vide alleged power of attorney, Shiv Singh was authorised only for the purpose of completing formalities and claim compensation from the State on account of damage to the crops due to heavy hail storm. It was also found that the date on which the voucher was issued, i.e., 30.5.1983, the alleged power of attorney in favour of Shiv Singh was not even in existence. In my opinion, no illegality has been committed by the learned court below in directing
R.F.A. No. 1438 of 1989 [2]
for payment of compensation to the rightful owner even if the same was paid by the State to the person, who was not authorised to receive the same.
Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.
(Rajesh Bindal) Judge
14.11.2008 mk
1 issue framed by the court
Whether compensation paid by the State to an unauthorized attorney invalidates a subsequent Reference Court order directing payment to the rightful owner.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
State of Haryana
Gurbaz Singh and others
Rajesh Bindal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
