The appellant's appeal was dismissed for non-prosecution after the court could not serve notice due to the death of the appellant's counsel and the inability to locate the appellant at the given address.
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.
In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh
R. F. A No. 1148 of 1990 (O&M)
Karam Chand ..... Appellant vs The State of Punjab and another ..... Respondents
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal
Present: None for the appellant.
Mr. O. P. Dabla, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab.
Rajesh Bindal J.
The landowner is in appeal before this court against the award of the learned court below passed under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, 'the Act') seeking enhancement of compensation for the acquired land.
Briefly, the facts of the case are that the State of Punjab vide notification dated 26.9.1985 issued under Section 4 of the Act, acquired the land situated within the revenue estate of Village Faridpur Raian, Tehsil Rajpura, District Patiala, for construction of Sutlej Yamuna Link Canal. The Land Acquisition Collector assessed the fair value of the land at Rs. 62,000/- per acre for chahi, Rs. 50,000/- per acre for rasoli/dakar and Rs. 35,000/- per acre for gair mumkin kind of land. On reference under Section 18 of the Act, the learned court below determined the market value of the land at Rs. 66,340/- per acre for chahi and Rs. 37,450/- per acre for gari mumkin kind of land. It is this award which is impugned in the present appeal.
On 24.9.2008, on the information of learned Additional Advocate General, Punjab, to the effect that Shri B. P. Singla, Advocate, who had filed the appeal had expired, notice was directed to be issued to the appellant for 1.12.2008. The office has reported that the notice issued to the appellant has been received back with the report that he is not residing at the given address. In such a situation when the counsel for the appellant had expired and at the address given in the appeal, the appellant cannot be served, this court had no other option but to dismiss the appeal for non-prosecution.
Ordered accordingly.
17.4.2009 ( Rajesh Bindal) vs. Judge
Karam Chand
The State of Punjab
Rajesh Bindal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
