Allowed

Tara Chand Sharma v. Haryana State

Punjab & Haryana HC14 Dec 2009CR/2182/2003

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a civil revision petition, the High Court of Punjab & Haryana allowed the petition and set aside an order dismissing a reference filed under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, directing the Reference Court to dispose of the matter with reasons.

What did the court decide?

Set aside the impugned order dated 1.8.2002; directed the Reference Court to dispose of the reference by passing a speaking order in accordance with law.

Tara Chand Sharma Vs Haryana State — Land Acquisition | Punjab & Haryana HC (2009)

¶1

CR No.2182 of 2003

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH

¶4

Civil Revision No.2182 of 2003 Date of Decision: December 14,2009

¶5

Tara Chand Sharma

¶6

...........Petitioner

¶7

Versus

¶8

Haryana State and others

¶9

..........Respondents

¶10

Coram: Hon'ble Mrs.Justice Sabina

¶11

Present: Mr.Amit Jain,Advocate,for the petitioner. None for the respondents

¶12

Sabina, J.

¶13

Petitioner sought a reference under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act,1894 (for short `the Act'). Vide the impugned order dated 1.8.2002. the said application was dismissed. Hence, the present revision petition.

¶14

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the reference had been sought under Section 30 of the Act before the disbursement of the amount of compensation. It was only, during the pendency of the reference, the amount had been disbursed to respondents No. 3 to 8.

¶15

Section 30 of the Act reads as under:-

¶16

“ 30.Dispute as to apportionment- When the amount of compensation has been settled under section 11, if any dispute arises as to the apportionment of the same or any part thereof, or as to the persons to whom the same or any part thereof, is

¶17

CR No.2182 of 2003

¶18

¶19

payable, the Collector may refer such dispute to the decision of the Court.”

¶20

The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner as well as respondents No. 3 to 8 had share in the suit property acquired by the State and were entitled to receive compensation of the acquired land as per their shares. Except respondent No.3, who had 8/14^th share in the suit property, the plaintiff and the remaining defendants No. 4 to 8 had 1/14^th share each of the acquired land. A perusal of the order reveals that no reasons have been given while declining the reference sought by the petitioner on the ground that it was not maintainable. The plea of the petitioner that, in fact, the amount had been disbursed during the pendency of the reference has also not been dealt with by the learned Additional District Judge. In case the petitioner has some share in the acquired land, he is entitled to receive compensation qua the same.

¶21

Accordingly, this revision petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 1.8.2002 is set aside. Reference Court is directed to dispose of the reference sought by the petitioner by passing a speaking order in accordance with law.

¶22

Parties are directed to appear before the Reference Court on

¶23

25.1.2010.

¶24

( Sabina ) Judge

¶25

December 14, 2009

¶26

arya

¶27

CR No.2182 of 2003 3

Tara Chand Sharma v. Haryana State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tara Chand Sharma v. Haryana State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Amar Kaur Vs Jagir Singh and Ors.

M/S Singla Trading Co. Vs Gurdeep Singh

HUDA and Anr. Vs Inder Singh and Anr.

Jasbir Singh Vs Shiv Charan and Ors.

Naresh Vs Shubha Chand and Anr.

(O&M)Santokh Singh Vs Kuldip Singh