Allowed

Gram Panchayat Bheora v. Municipal Council, Ropar & Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC14 Oct 2011CWP/5133/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court set aside a District Judge’s award on land acquisition compensation. Relying on prior judgments, the Court held the Judge lacked jurisdiction; a Tribunal under the Punjab Town Improvement Trust Act, 1922 must decide the matter. The State is directed to constitute the Tribunal within three months.

What did the court decide?

Impugned award set aside; State directed to constitute Tribunal under the 1922 Act within three months.

Gram Panchayat Bheora Vs Municipal Council, Ropar… — Land Acquisition | Punjab & Haryana HC (2011)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

¶2

Date of Decision: October 14, 2011

¶3

CWP No. 5132 of 2011 (O&M)

¶4

Gram panchayat Bheora

¶5

…Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

Land Acquisition Collector, Improvement Trust, Ropar and another

¶8

…Respondents

¶9

2. CWP No. 5133 of 2011 (O&M)

¶10

Gram Panchayat Bheora

¶11

…Petitioner Versus

¶12

Municipal Council, Ropar and others

¶13

…Respondents

¶14

CORAM: HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV NARAIN RAINA

¶15

Present:

¶16

For the petitioner(s): Mr. Naresh Kaushal, Advocate. For the respondent(s): Mr. Suvir Sehgal, Addl. AG, Punjab. Mr. A.K. Sharma, Advocate. Mr. Pritam Saini, Advocate. Ms. Geeta Sharma, Advocate.

¶17

To be referred to the Reporters or not?

¶18

Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

¶19

M.M. KUMAR, ACJ.

¶20

This order shall dispose of CWP Nos. 5132 and 5133 of 2011, which have been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution by the Gram Panchayat, Bheora, challenging common award/judgment dated 11.11.2010 rendered by the District Judge,

¶21

C.W.P. Nos. 5132 and 5133 of 2011 (O&M)

¶22

¶23

Rupnagar, deciding references under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for brevity, ‘the 1894 Act’) and determining the market value of the land/property in dispute. 2. Brief common facts of these petitions are that the petitioner Gram Panchayat was the owner of land measuring 38 Kanals 11 Marlas, situated within the revenue limits of village Bheora, Tehsil and District Rupnagar. On 28.4.1994, the said land was acquired under Section 42 of the Punjab Town Improvement Trust Act, 1922 (for brevity, ‘the 1922 Act’). The land in question has been utilised for a Scheme prepared by the Municipal Committee, Rupnagar, namely, ‘Transport Nagar Development Scheme, Rupnagar’. On 18.4.1996, Award No. 1 of 1996 was announced by the Land Acquisition Collector, Improvement Trust, Rupnagar. Dissatisfied with the award, the petitioner Gram Panchayat filed a reference under Section 18 of the 1894 Act for enhancement of the compensation of the acquired land (P-2). The Municipal Council, Rupnagar, disputed the disbursement of the compensation and it also filed a reference under Section 30 and 18 of the 1894 Act. The matter was referred to the Court of learned District Judge, Rupnagar. Before the learned District Judge the petitioner Gram Panchayat and the Municipal Council, Rupnagar, contested for their title and also led evidence with regard to the location and value of the land in dispute. The reference Court i.e. learned District Judge passed the impugned award and declined to enhance the compensation, which is subject matter of challenge in these petitions. The grievance of the petitioner Gram Panchayat is that

¶24

C.W.P. Nos. 5132 and 5133 of 2011 (O&M)

¶25

¶26

the learned District Judge, Rupnagar has no jurisdiction to decide the reference as a Court under Section 54 of the 1894 Act. The application/reference is required to be decided and the amount of compensation is to be determined by a Tribunal constituted under the provisions of the 1922 Act.

¶27

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perusing the paper book with their able assistance we find that the issue raised in these petitions has already been answered by a Division Bench judgment of this Court, dated 7.4.2010, rendered in the case of Gurcharan Singh and others v. State of Punjab and others (CWP No. 11553 of 2001) and connected petitions, namely , Nachattar Singh and others v. State of Punjab and others (CWP No. 11587 of 2001) and Hamir Singh and others v. Punjab State and others (CWP No. 2387 of 2010) . The view taken by the Division Bench in Gurcharan Singh’s case (supra) is based on the judgment of Hon’ble the Supreme Court rendered in the case of Karnal Improvement Trust, Karnal v. Parkash Wanti, (1995) 5 SCC 159 . Therefore, for parity of reasoning we allow these petitions in terms of Division Bench judgment dated 7.4.2010. Accordingly, the impugned award dated 11.11.2010, passed by the learned District Judge, Rupnagar, is set aside. The respondent State is directed to constitute the Tribunals under Section 59 of the 1922 Act along with the District Judge in the whole State if not already done. The needful shall be done within three months. After constitution of the Tribunal, the matter shall be decided expeditiously, preferably within two months thereafter. The report in this regard be placed on the record of

¶28

C.W.P. Nos. 5132 and 5133 of 2011 (O&M)

¶29

¶30

this case. A copy of the order dated 7.4.2010 rendered in the case of Gurcharan Singh (supra) be added and the same be read as part of this order.

¶31

The writ petitions stand disposed of in the above terms. A photocopy of this order be placed on the file of connected case.

¶32

(M.M. KUMAR)

¶33

ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE

¶34

October 14, 2011 Pkapoor

¶35

(RAJIV NARAIN RAINA) JUDGE

Gram Panchayat Bheora v. Municipal Council, Ropar & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gram Panchayat Bheora v. Municipal Council, Ropar & 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

Arjun Singh Vs State of Haryana & Ors.

Simranjit Singh Mann Vs Union of India and Ors.

Sikhs for Justice Vs U.T. Chandigarh

Rohit Thakuran Vs State of Haryana and Others

Sukhdev Singh Dhillon and Ors. Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Rajinder Singh Vs State of Punjab and Anr.