Dismissed

State of Haryana v. Tek Chand & Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC11 Oct 2010RFA/4742/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

State appealed an acquisition award raising compensation against a higher value fixed below. Court dismissed appeal relying on a prior judgment upholding the same award. Ordered costs for procedural default and mandated disclosure of earlier award status in all future land acquisition appeals.

What did the court decide?

Appeal dismissed; appeal filed without seeking condonation of delay also dismissed; costs of Rs. 20,000 imposed on appellants.

State of Haryana Vs Tek Chand & Ors. — Land Acquisition | Punjab & Haryana HC (2010)

¶1

R.F.A. No. 4742 of 2010 [1]

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

R.F.A. No. 4742 of 2010 (O&M) (LAC No. 137 of 2007) Date of decision: 11.10.2010

¶4

The State of Haryana and another

¶5

.. Appellants

¶6

¶7

Sh. Tek Chand and others

¶8

.. Respondents

¶9

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL

¶10

Present: Mr. D. D. Gupta, Additional Advocate General, Haryana.

¶11

Rajesh Bindal J.

¶12

This is an appeal filed by the State impugning the award of the learned court below dated 25.7.2009, whereby for acquisition of land carried out vide notification dated 16.3.1998, issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, the Act'), State of Haryana acquired 46.04 acres of land, situated in village Unchagaon, Hadbast No. 76, Tehsil Ballabgarh, District Faridabad for institutional, residential and commercial purposes for Sector 62, Faridabad. The same was followed by notification dated 26.2.1999, issued under Section 6 of the Act. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short, the Collector') awarded compensation @ 7,82,070/- per acre for the acquired land. Dissatisfied with the award of the Collector, the land owners filed objections. On reference under Section 18 of the Act, the learned court below assessed the market value of the acquired land @ 600/- per square yard relying upon an earlier award pertaining to the same acquisition.

¶13

Along with the appeal, an application seeking condonation of delay of 306 days in filing the appeal has also been filed. The appeal was filed in this court on 31.8.2010.

¶14

The learned Additional Advocate General was asked to apprise the court the status of the earlier award pertaining to the same acquisition, which was

¶15

R.F.A. No. 4742 of 2010 [2]

¶16

relied upon by the learned court below while assessing the compensation for the acquired land. He was unable to furnish the requisite information. The Bench Secretary was asked to ascertain from the computer as to whether other cases arising out of the same acquisition are pending or have already been decided by this court. It was found that number of cases arising out of the same acquisition had already been decided by this court on 20.7.2010 vide judgment in R.F.A. No.1664 of 2009 –The State of Haryana and another v. Gaje Singh and others, whereby the award of the learned court below was upheld. Copy of the judgment in the aforesaid case was furnished to the learned Additional Advocate General, who having gone through the same did not dispute the fact that award of compensation @ ` 600/- per square yard for the acquisition of land by the same notification has been upheld by this court in the aforesaid judgment.

¶17

Considering the aforesaid facts, I do not find any merit in the present appeal. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. Even the application for condonation of delay of 306 days in filing the appeal is also dismissed.

¶18

From the facts, narrated above, it is clear that the appeal was filed in this court ignoring the fact that the learned court below had awarded the compensation relying upon the earlier award, which was upheld by this court. As the same resulted in wasting the time of the court, the appellants are burdened with costs of ` 20,000/-. The costs be deposited with High Court Legal Service Committee within one month of receipt of certified copy of the order. The State would be at liberty to recover the aforesaid amount from the guilty officers/officials.

¶19

While dealing with the land acquisition cases for quite some time, this court felt that a number of cases have to be adjourned only for the reason that at the time of hearing of the appeal, the learned counsel does not have information about the status of the earlier case relied upon by the court below in the impugned award or some of the cases are admitted before the Registrar in spite of the fact that the learned court below had relied upon an earlier judgment of this court which had attained finality or an earlier award of the reference court, which was subsequently upheld by this court.

¶20

To avoid unnecessary adjournments of the cases, I deem it

¶21

appropriate to direct that in all appeals filed by the land owners or the State following information must be furnished in the appeal itself: (i) In case the learned Reference Court had relied upon any earlier award pertaining to same or any other acquisition, the fact as to whether any appeal against the same is pending or not, should be

¶22

R.F.A. No. 4742 of 2010 [3]

¶23

mentioned in the grounds of appeal. The number of such appeal and status thereof be also mentioned.

¶24

(ii) In case no earlier award is relied upon by the Reference Court, it should be mentioned that the Reference Court has not relied upon any earlier award.

¶25

The aforesaid facts should be mentioned in the last para of the grounds of appeal before the prayer clause. The Registry is directed to ensure compliance of the requirement. This may be brought to the notice of the Bar Association for notifying to the learned members of the Bar.

¶26

11.10.2010 mk

¶27

(Refer to Reporter)

State of Haryana v. Tek Chand & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State of Haryana v. Tek Chand & Ors.

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

Abdul Jabar Vs State of Punjab

Gurdayal Vs State of Haryana

Hari Singh Vs State of Haryana

Ranbir & Anr. Vs Rishi Pal

Punjab National Bank Vs Malhotra Traders & Others

Smt Raj Kumar Vs State of Haryana