This order dismissed eight consolidated appeals seeking enhancement of compensation for super-structures on land acquired by the Union Territory, Chandigarh. The court relied on a prior precedent.
The appeals are 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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
| Date of Decisi | on: 18.2.2009 | |
|---|---|---|
| (1) | R.F.A. No. 1961 of 2002 (O&M) Gurdev Singh Versus |
....Appellant |
| Union Territory, Chandigarh |
...Respondent | |
| (2) | R.F.A. No. 1989 of 2002 (O&M) Bachan Kaur Versus Union Territory, Chandigarh |
....Appellant ...Respondent |
| (3) | R.F.A. No. 20 of 2004 (O&M) Kuldeep Singh and another Versus |
....Appellants |
| Union Territory, Chandigarh |
...Respondent | |
| (4) | R.F.A. No. 21 of 2004 (O&M) Smt. Taro Devi and others Versus |
....Appellants |
| Union Territory, Chandigarh |
...Respondent | |
| (5) | R.F.A. No. 22 of 2004 (O&M) Suraj Parkash and another Versus |
....Appellants |
| Union Territory, Chandigarh |
...Respondent | |
| (6) | R.F.A. No. 23 of 2004 (O&M) Charanjit Singh (deceased) through LRs |
....Appellant |
| Versus | ||
| Union Territory, Chandigarh |
...Respondent |
-2-
(7) R.F.A. No. 24 of 2004 (O&M) Kuldip Singh ....Appellant Versus Union Territory, Chandigarh ...Respondent (8) R.F.A. No. 25 of 2004 (O&M) Baldev Singh ....Appellant Versus Union Territory, Chandigarh ...Respondent
CORAM : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal
Present:Mr.P.C. Dhiman, Advocate for the appellant(s). Mr. Sanjiv Ghai, Advocate for the respondent in RFA No. 1961, 1989 of 2002.
RAJESH BINDAL J
This order will dispose of a bunch of 8 appeals as the same arise out of a common acquisition. The facts have been extracted from RFA No. 1961 of 2002.
The landowners are in appeal seeking enhancement of compensation for super-structures existing on the acquired land.
Briefly, the facts are that vide notification dated 3.7.1997, issued under Section 4 of the Land acquisition Act, 1984, ( for short 'the Act'), the Union Territory, Chandigarh acquired land in question falling within the revenue estate of village Nizampur Kumbra and Nizampur Burail, for development of Sector 51 Chandigarh. The same was followed by notification dated 30.6.1998 issued under Section 6 of the Act. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short 'the Collector') assessed the compensation for super-structures and trees existing on the acquired land. Dissatisfied with the award of the Collector, the land owner/claimant filed objection. On reference under Section 18 of the Act, the learned Court below granted 25 % increase on the value of the super-structures as was assessed by the Collector at PWD rates.
Learned counsel for the appellants fairly submits that the claim
-3-
made by the land owners in the aforesaid appeals is squarely covered by earlier judgment of this Court in RFA No. 727 of 2001 decided on February 4, 2009 titled as Narinder Singh Vs. Union Territory, Chandigarh. Accordingly, the claim made in the present appeals does not survive.
Learned counsel for the U.T. Chandigarh does not dispute the aforesaid stand of counsel for the appellant(s).
For the reasons stated in Narinder Singh's case (supra), the appeals are dismissed.
(RAJESH BINDAL) 18.2.2009 JUDGE Reema
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the claim for enhancement of compensation for super-structures is barred by the judgment in RFA No. 727 of 2001.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Narinder Singh Vs. Union Territory, ChandigarhFollowed¶14
RFA No. 727 of 2001
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Gurdev Singh
Bachan Kaur
Kuldeep Singh
Taro Devi
Suraj Parkash
Charanjit Singh
Rajesh Bindal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
