Allowed

Thakur Dwara Shri Krishan Ji Maharaj v. State of Punjab Ands Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC19 May 2010CWP/3332/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a writ petition challenging an award determining market value under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The Court held that jurisdiction lay with a Tribunal under the Punjab Town Improvement Trust Act, 1922, not the District Judge, and set aside the impugned award for remand.

What did the court decide?

Impugned award dated 2.12.2009 passed by the District Judge, Sangrur set aside; matter remanded to a Tribunal for final decision within six months.

Thakur Dwara Shri Krishan Ji Maharaj Vs State… — Landlord and Tenant | Punjab & Haryana HC (2010)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

¶2

CHANDIGARH.

¶3

CWP No. 3332 of 2010

¶4

Date of Decision: May 19, 2010

¶5

Thakur Dwara Shri Krishan Ji Maharaj

¶6

…Petitioner

¶7

Versus

¶8

State of Punjab and others

¶9

…Respondents

¶10

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR

¶11

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN

¶12

Present: Mr. J.R. Mittal, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Kashmir Singh, for the petitioner.

¶13

Mr. Suvir Sehgal, Additional Advocate General, Punjab, for respondent No. 1.

¶14

Mr. Vishal Gupta, Advocate, for Mr. G.S. Attariwala, Advocate, for respondent Nos. 2 to 4.

¶15

To be referred to the Reporters or not?

¶16

Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

¶17

M.M. KUMAR, J.

¶18

This petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution challenges award dated 28.11.2005 (P-1), passed by the Land Acquisition Collector, Improvement Trust, Barnala-respondent No. 2 as also the award dated 2.12.2009 (P-3), passed by the learned District Judge, Sangrur,

¶19

C.W.P. No. 3332 of 2010

¶20

¶21

determining the market value of the property in dispute in the reference application filed under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for brevity, ‘the 1894 Act’).

¶22

Brief facts of the case are that the land of the petitioner measuring 146 Kanals 19 Marlas, situated within the revenue limits of village Handiaya, Tehsil Barnala, District Sangrur, was acquired by the respondents under the provisions of the Punjab Town Improvement Trust Act, 1922 (for brevity, ‘the 1922 Act’) read with the provisions of the 1894 Act, for the purpose of development of a residential/commercial colony. A notice under Section 36 of the 1922 Act was published for the first time on 27.2.2004, second time on 5.3.2004 and third time on 12.3.2004 in the Government Gazette. On 28.11.2005, the Land Acquisition Collectorrespondent No. 2 announced the award (P-1). Dissatisfied with the award, the petitioner filed an application, dated 3.4.2007, before the competent authority for reference under Section 18 of the 1894 Act, for determining adequate compensation of the acquired land (P-2). The learned District Judge, Sangrur, dismissed the reference application vide his award dated 2.12.2009, which is subject matter of challenge in the instant petition. The grievance of the petitioner is that the learned District Judge, Sangrur has no jurisdiction to decide the application of the petitioner as a Court under Section 54 of the 1894 Act. The application filed by the petitioner is required to be decided and the amount of compensation is to be determined by a Tribunal constituted under the provisions of the 1922 Act.

¶23

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perusing the paper book with their able assistance we find that the issue raised in the instant petition has already been answered by us in our judgment dated

¶24

C.W.P. No. 3332 of 2010

¶25

¶26

7.4.2010 passed in the cases of Gurcharan Singh and others v. State of Punjab and others (CWP No. 11553 of 2001); Nachattar Singh and others v. State of Punjab and others (CWP No. 11587 of 2001) and Hamir Singh and others v. Punjab State and others (CWP No. 2387 of 2010) . The view taken by us in Gurcharan Singh’s case (supra) is based on the judgment of Hon’ble the Supreme Court rendered in the case of Karnal Improvement Trust, Karnal v. Parkash Wanti, (1995) 5 SCC 159 . Therefore, for parity of reasoning we allow the instant petition in terms of our judgment dated 7.4.2010. Accordingly, the impugned award dated 2.12.2009 (P-3), passed by the learned District Judge, Sangrur is hereby set aside. The matter is remanded back, which shall be decided finally in accordance with the law within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The amount already paid to the petitioner shall be adjusted after the announcement of the award afresh. A copy of the order dated 7.4.2010 rendered in the case of Gurcharan Singh (supra) be added and the same be read as part of this order.

¶27

The writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms.

¶28

(M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE

¶29

May 19, 2010

¶30

(JITENDRA CHAUHAN) JUDGE

¶31

Pkapoor

Thakur Dwara Shri Krishan Ji Maharaj v. State of Punjab Ands Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Thakur Dwara Shri Krishan Ji Maharaj v. State of Punjab Ands Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Prabhat Infratech Pvt. Ltd. Vs State of Punjab and Anr.

Hardeep Kaur and Ors. Vs State of Punjab and Anr.

Amarjit Singh & Ors. Vs Ut of Chandigarh & Ors.

Partap Chand Vs State of Punjab and Others

Cit, Faridabad Vs M/S Lakhani Footwear Ltd. Faridabad

Cit, Faridabad Vs Vimal Chawla Charitable Trust