Partly allowed

State of Punjab v. Smt. Dwarki etc.

Punjab & Haryana HC3 Aug 2010RFA/2666/1993

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of three related appeals and cross-objections arising from a common land acquisition for the SYL Canal. Relying on a prior judgment enhancing compensation, the Court dismissed the State's appeal for reduction and allowed the landowners' cross-objection for enhancement of compensation.

What did the court decide?

Appeal for reduction dismissed; cross-objection for enhancement of compensation allowed in terms of RFA No. 3147 of 1992.

State of Punjab Vs Smt. Dwarki etc. — Public Procurement and Tenders | Punjab & Haryana HC (2010)

¶1

RFA No. 2666 of 1993 -1-

¶2

In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh

¶3

Date of decision: 3.8.2010

¶4

RFA No. 2666 of 1993 (O&M) The State of Punjab ..... Appellant vs Smt. Dwarki ..... Respondent

¶5

2. RFA No. 2667 of 1993 and Cross-objection No. 9/CI of 2000 (O&M)

¶6

The State of Punjab ..... Appellant vs Amar Kaur and others ..... Respondents

¶7

RFA No. 2819 of 1993 (O&M)

¶8

The State of Punjab ..... Appellant vs Jit Singh and another ..... Respondents

¶9

Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal

¶10

Present: Mr. Yatinder Sharma, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab.

¶11

Mr. S. K. Singla, Advocate, for the landowners-cross-objectors.

¶12

Rajesh Bindal J.

¶13

This order shall dispose of the aforesaid appeals, as the same arise out of common acquisition.

¶14

The State has filed the aforesaid appeals 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 of compensation for the acquired land whereas the landowners are seeking enhancement of compensation.

¶15

The facts have been extracted from RFA No. 2666 of 1993.

¶16

Briefly, the facts of the case are that the State of Punjab vide notification dated 7.10.1985 issued under Section 4 of the Act, acquired the land forming part of revenue estate of Village Mehdudan, Tehsil Rajpura, District Patiala, for construction of SYL Canal. The Land Acquisition Collector assessed the market value of different kinds of land at different rates. Dissatisfied with the award of the Collector, the landowners filed objections. On reference under Section 18 of the Act, the learned court below determined the market value of the acquired land @ 1,25,000/- per acre for chahi, 75,000/- per acre for barani and

¶17

RFA No. 2666 of 1993 -2-

¶18

` 55,000/- per acre for banjar kind of land. It is this award which is impugned by both the parties in the present set of appeals.

¶19

Learned counsel for the landowners submitted that the issue raised in the present set of appeals is squarely covered by judgment of this court in RFA No. 3147 of 1992 The State of Punjab vs Chhaja Singh and another, decided on 17.2.2000, whereby the compensation payable to the landowners for the land acquired vide same notification, was further enhanced.

¶20

Learned counsel for the State did not dispute this factual position.

¶21

For the detailed reasons recorded in the aforesaid judgment, the appeals filed by the State for reduction are dismissed and the cross-objections filed by the landowners are disposed of in the same terms.

¶22

3.8.2010 vs.

¶23

(Rajesh Bindal) Judge

State of Punjab v. Smt. Dwarki etc.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State of Punjab v. Smt. Dwarki etc.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

State of Haryana Vs Mohan Lal etc.

(O&M) Gurdev Singh Vs State of Punjab

Gurdev Singh Vs State of Punjab

Sukhdev Singh Vs State of Punjab

Jagdish Rai Vs Surinder Kumar & Ors.

State of Punjab Vs Amar Kaur etc.