The High Court dismissed the State's Regular First Appeal seeking reduction of compensation. The Court held that since compensation was earlier enhanced for the same land acquisition, the State's claim for reduction could not survive.
The appeal filed by the State 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 AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
R.F.A. No. 252 of 1992 (O&M) Date of Decision: 12.8.2010.
The State of Haryana
....Appellant
Versus
Shri Jagmohan Singh and another ...Respondents
CORAM : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal
Present:Mr. Ashish Gupta, Addl. AG Haryana.
Mr. J.S. Dhaliwal, Advocate for the respondents.
RAJESH BINDAL J
The present Regular First Appeal has been filed by the State seeking reduction of the compensation awarded to the land owners.
Briefly, the facts are that vide notification dated 30.7.1987 under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 ( for short, 'the Act') and vide notification dated 14.3.1988 under Section 6 of the Act, State of Haryana acquired 3.59 acres of land situated in the revenue estate of village Mewla Mahrajpur, Had Bast No. 4, Tehsil Ballabgarh, District Faridabad for the development and utilisation of land as link Road from Delhi-Mathura road to Sector 46 of the Faridabad-Ballabhgarh controlled area. The Land Acquisition Collector ( for short, 'the Collector') assessed the compensation of the acquired land @ 90,000/- per acre. The learned Additional District Judge, on reference under Section 18 of the Act awarded compensation @ 300/- per square yard.
In the appeal filed by the landowners(respondents in the present appeal) bearing RFA No. 460 of 1992 Jagmohan Singh and another Vs. State of Haryana decided on September 20, 2004, this Court had enhanced the compensation to 337.20 per square yard from 300/- per square yard as was granted by the learned Court below. This was relying upon an earlier order passed in RFA No. 253 of 1992, Haryana State Vs. Escorts Dealers Development Association Ltd. decided on 26.11.1993. Considering the aforesaid fact, the claim made by the State seeking reduction in compensation arising out of the same acquisition against the respondent does not survive.
The appeal is accordingly dismissed.
12.8.2010.
Reema
(RAJESH BINDAL) JUDGE
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the State's appeal seeking reduction of compensation awarded to landowners is maintainable when compensation was previously enhanced against the State for the same acquisition.
Whether the claim for reduction in compensation survives against the respondents.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Jagmohan Singh and another Vs. State of HaryanaRelied on¶13
RFA No. 460 of 1992 Jagmohan Singh and another Vs. State of Haryana
Haryana State Vs. Escorts Dealers Development Association Ltd.Relied on¶13
RFA No. 253 of 1992, Haryana State Vs. Escorts Dealers Development Association Ltd.
3 provisions across 1 enactments
The State of Haryana
Shri Jagmohan Singh and another
Rajesh Bindal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
