The High Court of Punjab & Haryana dismissed the State of Punjab's appeal seeking reduction in compensation for superstructures awarded over the land acquired for SYL Canal, declining intervention due to the marginal financial dispute and the age of the acquisition.
The appeal was dismissed with no relief granted.
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. 2335 of 1990 (O&M)
The State of Punjab and another ... Appellants vs Bachint Singh and others ..... Respondents
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal
Present: Mr. Yatinder Sharma, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab.
Mr. R. L. Sharma, Advocate, for the respondents.
Rajesh Bindal J.
The State of Punjab is in appeal appeal before this Court against the award passed by learned court below seeking reduction in the amount of compensation awarded for the superstructures.
Briefly, the facts are that State of Punjab vide notification dated 26.11.1982 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, acquired land situated within the revenue estate of village Nangal, Tehsil and District Ropar, for SYL Canal. The Land Acquisition Collector assessed the compensation. Aggrieved against the award of the Collector, the landowners filed objections which were referred to the learned Court below for consideration, who keeping in view the material placed on record by the parties, awarded compensation on account of severance along with other benefits under the Act. It is this award which is impugned by the State before this court.
A perusal of the paper-book shows that dispute sought to be raised by the appellant in the present appeal is merely for ` 8,881.73 paise and the acquisition having taken place more than 28 years back, I do not deem it appropriate to interfere at this stage.
Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.
(Rajesh Bindal) Judge
10.8.2010 vs.
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the State was entitled to interfere with an old land acquisition award despite a marginal dispute of 8,881.73 paise.
Whether the court should allow an appeal regarding compensation given the acquisition took place over 28 years ago.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
The State of Punjab and another
Bachint Singh and others
Rajesh Bindal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
