Appeal filed by landowners seeking enhancement of compensation for acquired land. No appearance by appellants. Appeal dismissed in default.
The appeal is 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. 2310 of 1992 (O&M)
Lachhman Singh and others ..... Appellants vs The State of Haryana .... Respondent
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal
Present: None for the appellants.
Mr. Ashish Gupta, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana.
Rajesh Bindal J.
The landowners have filed the present appeal seeking enhancement of compensation for the acquired land.
Briefly, the facts are that vide notification dated 1.1.1982 published on 26.1.1982 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, “the Act”), State of Haryana acquired 6.39 acre of land situated within the revenue estate of village Barwala, Hadbast No. 246, Tehsil Kalka, District Ambala, for construction of L/R from Bassi Barwala road to Bhareli. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short, the Collector') assessed the market value of the acquired land @ 8,000/- per acre for barani and gair mumkin tatian, and 12,000/- per acre for chahi, gair mumkin makan, bara school and garha khad land. Aggrieved against the award of the Collector, the land owners filed objections. On reference, the learned court below assessed the market value of the acquired land at a uniform rate of 12,000/- per acre. It is this award of the learned Reference Court which is impugned in the present appeal.
No one has appeared for the appellants at the time of hearing.
The case was shown in the taken up list on 6th , 13th and 24th September, 2010, however, no one has appeared for the appellants. Today also, at the time of hearing, no one has appeared for the appellants. Prima-facie, it shows that the appellants are not interested in pursing their appeal.
Accordingly, the same is dismissed in default.
1.10.2010 (Rajesh Bindal) vs. Judge
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Lachhman Singh and others
The State of Haryana
Rajesh Bindal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
