The State of Punjab appealed against an order reducing compensation for acquired land used for the Sutlej Yamuna Link Canal. The bench dismissed the appeal by distinquishing a prior judgment where compensation was enhanced.
The appeal seeking reduction of compensation is 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 & Haryana at Chandigarh
RFA No. 1843 of 1990 (O&M)
The State of Punjab ..... Appellant vs Uttam Singh and others ..... Respondents
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal
Present: Mr. Yatinder Sharma, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab.
Rajesh Bindal J.
The State of Punjab is in appeal before this court against the order of the learned court below seeking reduction of compensation for the acquired land. Briefly, the facts of the case are that the State of Punjab vide notification dated 11.10.1985 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 (for short, “the Act”), acquired the land situated in revenue estate of Village Powala, Tehsil Rajpura, District Patiala, for construction of Sutlej Yamuna Link Canal. The Land Acquisition Collector assessed the market value of different kinds of land at different rates. On reference under Section 18 of the Act, the learned court below, determined the market value of the acquired land @ ` 75,000/- per acre for rousli kind of land. It is this award which is impugned in the present appeal.
Learned State counsel submitted that the claim made in the present appeal is squarely covered by judgment of this court in RFA No. 349 of 1990- Punjab State vs Madan Lal and others, decided on 23.9.1999, whereby compensation payable to the landowners was further enhanced.
Since this court had further enhanced the compensation payable to the landowners, no case for reduction is made out. Accordingly, the present appeal is dismissed.
(Rajesh Bindal) Judge
10.8.2010 vs.
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the claim for reduction of compensation is maintainable when compensation has been further enhanced in a prior judgment.
Whether the present appeal seeking reduction of compensation should be allowed.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Punjab State vs Madan Lal and othersDistinguished¶8
RFA No. 349 of 1990- Punjab State vs Madan Lal and others,
3 provisions across 1 enactments
State of Punjab
Uttam Singh and others
Rajesh Bindal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
