Landowner appealed for enhanced compensation in a land acquisition case. No appeal side appeared. Court found no prima facie case based on impugned award; dismissed appeal in default.
Appeal dismissed in default.
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. 2296 of 1991 (O&M)
Hardial Singh
..... Appellant
vs
Punjab State and others
.... Respondents
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal
Present: None for the appellants.
Mr. A. S. Jatana, Additional sAdvocate General, Punjab.
Rajesh Bindal J.
The landowner has filed the present appeal seeking enhancement of compensation for the acquired land.
Briefly, the facts are that vide notification dated 10.10.1978 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, “the Act”), the State of Punjab acquired 75 kanals 1marla land situated within the revenue estate of village Fateh Nangal, Tehsil and District Gurdaspur, for setting up of New Mandi Township at Dhariwal Town. The Land Acquisition Collector assessed the market value of the acquired land. Aggrieved against the award of the Collector, the land owner filed objections. On reference, the learned court below, on the basis of its earlier award, determined the market value of the acquired land @ ` 45,000/- per acre. It is this award of the learned Reference Court which is impugned in the present appeal.
The case was shown in the list of taken up cases more than five days i.e. on August 31, October 1, and 6, 2010, however, no one appeared for the appellant. The same is the position today.
A perusal of the impugned award shows that the learned court below while determining the market value of the acquired land had relied upon its earlier award, Ex. P-5, vide which the market value of the land acquired vide notification of the same date and for same very purpose was assessed. Since there was no other evidence available on record, prima facie, no case for interference is made out. However, as no one has appeared for the appellant, the appeal is dismissed in default.
(Rajesh Bindal) Judge
12.10.2010 vs.
Hardial Singh
Punjab State
Rajesh Bindal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
