This single-judge court dismissed a second reference appeal by default against an award for land acquisition compensation under the Punjab Town Improvement Act, 1922, as counsel for appellants were absent.
Second reference appeal dismissed for default due to absence of appellants' counsel.
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.
RFA No. 2902 of 1989
(1)
RFA No. 2902 of 1989 (O&M)
In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh
Date of decision : 11.8.2010
Sham Lal and another
..... Appellants
vs
Patiala Improvement Trust and others
..... Respondents
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal
Present: None for the appellants.
Mr. P. S. Dhaliwal, Advocate, for Patiala Improvement Trust,
Mr. Yatinder Sharma, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab.
Rajesh Bindal J.
The landowners have filed the present appeal against the award of the learned court below seeking further enhancement of compensation for the acquired land.
Briefly, the facts are that land situated in revenue limits of Patiala was acquired by the Improvement Trust, Patiala, vide notification dated 30.12.1976 issued under Section 42 of the Punjab Town Improvement Act, 1922 corresponding to Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, for development of scheme known as Saheed Sewa Singh Thikriwala Nagar opposite Police Station, Sadar Patiala. The Land Acquisition Collector assessed the market value of the acquired land @ 8.25 per square yard. Dissatisfied with the award of the Collector, the landowners/claimants filed objections. The learned District Judge, on reference assessed the compensation @ 15/- per square yard for Block-A, 12/- per square yard upto the depth of half of Block-B and the remaining acquired land at 10/- per square yard. It is this award which is challenged in the present appeal by the landowners.
Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that present appeal is not maintainable as the land was acquired under the provisions of Punjab Town Improvement Act, 1922, as only a writ petition could be filed. Other landowners had also filed the writ petitions. However, he submitted that the issues involved are squarely covered by Division Bench judgment of this court in CWP No. 12032 of 1995 – Krishan Kumar and others vs The State of Punjab and others, decided on 24.8.2005, whereby the award of the learned court below was upheld.
RFA No. 2902 of 1989
(2)
A perusal of the award shows that the issue under consideration in the aforesaid judgment was regarding valuation of land acquired vide notification dated 30.12.1976. In the present case also the land was acquired for the same very purpose vide notification of the same date. Since this court in the aforesaid judgment had upheld the award of the learned court below, prima facie, no case for further enhancement is made out. However, as counsel for the landowners is not available, without going into the issue of maintainability of the appeal, the same is dismissed in default.
11.8.2010 vs.
(Rajesh Bindal) Judge
2 issues framed by the court
Whether an appeal for further enhancement of compensation is maintainable against an award made under the Punjab Town Improvement Act, 1922.
Whether further enhancement of compensation is warranted on reference to award from 1989 considering a Division Bench judgment upholding the same award from paragraph 12032 of 1995.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Krishan Kumar and others vs The State of Punjab and othersReferred¶18
CWP No. 12032 of 1995 Krishan Kumar and others vs The State of Punjab and others
Sham Lal
An Echo Fig
Patiala Improvement Trust
An Echo Fig
Rajesh Bindal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
