The appellant sought enhancement of compensation for a superstructure on land acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Dismissing the appeal in default for the appellant's non-appearance, the court held that prima facie no case for enhancement was made out absent evidence.
Appeal dismissed in default due to non-appearance of the appellant.
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
RFA No. 1349 of 1993 (O&M)
Teja Singh ..... Appellant vs The State of Punjab ..... Respondent
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal
Present: None for the appellant.
Mr. Yatinder Sharma, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab.
Rajesh Bindal J.
The landowner has filed the present appeal seeking further enhancement of compensation for the superstructure existing on the acquired land.
Briefly, the facts are that vide notification dated 15.1.1976 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, 'the Act'), the State of Punjab acquired land along with superstructure situated within the revenue estate of village Tafazalpura, Tehsil and District Patiala for setting up of an Urban Estate. The Land Acquisition Collector vide supplementary award no. 415 dated 25.2.1983 assessed the compensation for the superstructure @ 28,430/-. Dissatisfied with the award of the Collector, the claimant filed objections. On reference under Section 18 of the Act, the learned court below enhanced the compensation for the superstructure to 50,000/-. It is this award which is impugned in the present appeal.
No one has appeared for the appellant at the time of hearing.
A perusal of the impugned award shows that the appellant has not produced any evidence to establish that the superstructure in question was constructed in the year 1974. On the other hand, the respondent department assessed the compensation on the basis of report prepared by the subject experts. As there is no evidence available on record, prima facie, no case for enhancement is made out. However, as no one has appeared for the appellant, the present appeal is dismissed in default.
(Rajesh Bindal) Judge
25.8.2010 vs.
2 issues framed by the court
whether there was evidence to enhance compensation for the superstructure on acquired land
whether the appeal should be allowed in default due to non-appearance of the appellant
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Teja Singh
The State of Punjab
Rajesh Bindal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
