This judgment dismissed an appeal for enhancement of compensation under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The court held that the award, based on a settlement with the Chief Minister, precluded further enhancement and allowed no case for evidence not supported by appearance.
Appeal dismissed in default due to non-appearance of the appellant.
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. 2561 of 1991 (O&M)
Chetu ..... Appellant vs The State of Punjab ..... Respondent
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal
Present: None for the appellant.
Mr. Yatinder Sharma, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab.
Rajesh Bindal J.
The landowner is in appeal before this court against the award of the learned court below passed under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, 'the Act') seeking enhancement of compensation for the acquired land.
Briefly, the facts of the case are that the State of Punjab acquired the land situated within the revenue estate of Village Oind, Tehsil and District Ropar, for construction of Sutlej Yamuna Link Canal. The Land Acquisition Collector assessed the market value of the 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 on the basis of a settlement arrived at between the landowners and the then Chief Minister of Punjab, according to which the value of the acquired land was assessed @ 1,00,000/- per acre for chahi, 80,000/- per acre for barani, 75,000/- per acre for banjar, and 70,000/- per acre for gair mumkin kinds of land. It is this award which is impugned in the present appeal.
Since the market value of the acquired land was assessed by the learned court below on the basis of a settlement arrived at between the landowners and the State of Punjab, no case for further enhancement is made out. Moreover, the evidence led by the appellant in the form of sale-deed, Ex. P-1, vide which a small piece of land measuring 5 biswas was sold on 16.10.1984 and the court below had rightly not considered the same in view of above settlement. Prima facie no case for enhancement is made out. However, as no one has appeared for the appellant in support of his claim, the present appeal is dismissed in default.
(Rajesh Bindal) Judge
12.8.2010 vs.
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the appellant is entitled to enhancement of compensation when the award was based on a settlement with the Chief Minister.
Whether evidence of a later sale-deed required to be considered absent a settlement and lack of appearance.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Chetu
State of Punjab
Rajesh Bindal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
