In an appeal against an award reducing land acquisition compensation, the Division Bench held that since compensation was enhanced in Jogi Ram, the State's appeal does not survive. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed and the landowner's cross-objections disposed of accordingly.
Appeal dismissed; cross-objections disposed of in the same terms.
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. 2621 of 1993 and Cross-objection No. 2/CI of 1996 (O&M)
State of Haryana and another
..... Appellants
vs
Chuni Lal
..... Respondent
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal
Present: Mr. Ashish Gupta, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana.
Mr. Pritam Saini, Advocate, for the cross-objector/respondent.
Rajesh Bindal J.
The State has filed the present 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 reduction in the compensation for the acquired land whereas by filing the cross-objections the landowner is seeking further enhancement of compensation.
Briefly, the facts of the case are that the State of Haryana vide notification dated 15.12.1982 issued under Section 4 of the Act, acquired the land within the revenue estates of Villages Taraf Afgan, Ugra-Kheri and Malik UgraKheri, Tehsil and District Panipat, for development and utilisation thereof as residential/ commercial and Industrial area in Urban Estate, Panipat. The Land Acquisition Collector assessed the market value of the land @ 59,200/- per acre i.e. 370/- per marla. On reference under Section 18 of the Act, the learned court below determined the market value of the acquired land @ ` 44/- per square yard. It is this award which is impugned by both the parties.
Learned counsels for the parties fairly submitted that the issues involved in the present case are squarely covered by a Division Bench judgment of this court reported in Jogi Ram and others vs State of Haryana 1997 (2) P.L.R. 303, whereby the compensation payable to the landowners was further enhanced to ` 80/- per square yard.
Since this court had further enhanced the compensation payable to the landowners for the acquired land in the aforesaid judgment, the appeal filed by the State does not survive. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed and the crossobjections filed by the landowner are disposed of in the same terms.
(Rajesh Bindal) Judge
9.8.2010 vs.
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the appeal survives in light of the compensation enhancement in Jogi Ram and others vs State of Haryana?
Whether the landowner's cross-objections seeking further enhancement of compensation can be disposed of on the same terms?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Jogi Ram and others vs State of HaryanaExplained¶14
Jogi Ram and others vs State of Haryana
2 provisions across 1 enactments
State of Haryana
Chuni Lal
Rajesh Bindal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
