Partly allowed

Urinder Singh and Ors. v. State of Pb. and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC2 Feb 2011LPA/2224/1989

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Division Bench partly allowed Letters Patent Appeal against a Single Judge order reducing land acquisition compensation and remitting apportionment issues. The Court held compensation must be enhanced based on a prior Division Bench judgment but noted the apportionment remedy was not seriously pressed by the appellants.

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced to ₹2,000 per marla with statutory benefits; cross-objections dismissed; apportionment matter remitted.

Urinder Singh and Ors. Vs State of Pb. and Ors. — Land Acquisition | Punjab & Haryana HC (2011)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

¶2

L.P.A. No. 2224 of 1989

¶3

DATE OF DECISION : 02.02.2011

¶4

Urinder Singh and others

¶5

.... APPELLANTS

¶6

Versus

¶7

Punjab State and others

¶8

..... RESPONDENTS

¶9

CORAM :- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. JEYAPAUL

¶10

Present: Mr. Gurcharan Singh, Advocate, for the appellants.

¶11

Mr. K.D.S. Sidhu, DAG, Punjab, for the respondents.

¶12

¶13

SATISH KUMAR MITTAL , J. ( Oral )

¶14

This Letters Patent Appeal has been filed by the appellants against the judgment dated September 4, 1989, passed by the learned Single Judge. By the said judgment, the learned Single Judge disposed of Regular First Appeal No. 461 of 1984, preferred by the State of Punjab for reduction of the amount of compensation, along with the Cross-objections, filed by Raj Kumar and another, the land owners; Regular First Appeal No. 50 of 1984, preferred by the appellants, for enhancement of compensation; and Regular First Appeal No. 51 of 1984, preferred by Bachan Singh and others, again for enhancement of compensation.

¶15

LPA No. 2224 of 1989

¶16

-2-

¶17

In the present case, vide notification dated 2.6.1978 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act'), the State of Punjab acquired land measuring 5 acres 5 kanals and 12 marlas from the revenue estate of Kapurthala, 1 acre 5 kanals and 13 marlas from the revenue estate of village Shekhupura, for setting up a new sabzi market at Kapurthala. Land measuring 10 kanals 3 marlas, comprised in khasra No. 5151 belonging to Raj Kumar and Narinder Kumar, was also part of the aforesaid land measuring 5 acres 5 kanals and 12 marlas.

¶18

The Land Acquisition Collector, vide award dated 20.1.1979, awarded compensation for the acquired land at the rate of 15,600/- per acre. On reference by the land owners, the Reference Court, vide its award dated 6.10.1983, though assessed the market value of the acquired land at the rate of 8,000/- per marla, but enhanced the compensation from 15,600/- per acre to 5,000/- per marla, because the land owners in their reference only claimed the said amount.

¶19

Dissatisfied with the said award, both the appellants and Bachan Singh etc., as well as the State filed separate appeals. Since Raj Kumar and Narinder Kumar did not file any appeal, therefore, they filed cross-objections in the appeal, filed by the State. The learned Single Judge, vide the impugned judgment, allowed the State appeal, i.e. RFA No. 461 of 1984, and reduced the amount of compensation from 5,000/- per marla to 540/- per marla. Consequently, the cross-objections filed by Raj Kumar and Narinder Kumar for enhancement of compensation were dismissed. By

¶20

LPA No. 2224 of 1989

¶21

-3-

¶22

the said judgment, the appeal filed by the appellants (RFA No. 50 of 1984) qua enhancement of compensation was dismissed, but the matter regarding apportionment of the compensation was remitted back to the Reference Court, as the appellants were claiming major amount of compensation being perpetual lessees on the acquired land. The third appeal (RFA No. 51 of 1984), preferred by Bachan Singh and others for enhancement of compensation was dismissed.

¶23

In this appeal, the appellants have made two fold prayers, i.e. (i) that in the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the evidence available on record, the reduction of compensation by the learned Single Judge is not justified; and (ii) that the appellants being perpetual lessees are entitled for entire compensation, therefore, the matter should not have been remitted to the Reference Court.

¶24

We have heard learned counsel for the parties on both the aforesaid submissions, made by learned counsel for the appellants.

¶25

During the course of hearing, it has been pointed out that as far as the amount of compensation is concerned, the matter is covered by the judgment dated February 19, 2009, passed by this Court in LPA No. 14 of 1990, filed by Raj Kumar and the legal heirs of Narinder Kumar, whose 10 kanals 3 marlas of land, comprised in khasra No. 5151, was acquired by the same notification. By the said judgment, the Division Bench of this Court, after taking into consideration the evidence available on record, modified the judgment of the learned Single Judge and enhanced the compensation

¶26

LPA No. 2224 of 1989 -4-

¶27

from 540/- per marla to 2,000/- per marla with all other statutory benefits of interest and solatium to be arrived at as per the provisions of the Act. Learned counsel for the respondents has fairly conceded that as far as the awarding of compensation is concerned, the impugned judgment passed by the learned Single Judge in the case of the appellants is to be modified in terms of the aforesaid judgment dated February 19, 2009, passed by the Division Bench of this Court, and the appellants (claimants) shall be entitled for compensation of the acquired land at the rate of ` 2,000/- per marla with all other statutory benefits, as provided under the Act.

¶28

Regarding the second prayer, with regard to the apportionment of compensation and remitting the matter, learned counsel for the appellants has not seriously pressed for this prayer, as the learned Single Judge has remanded the matter to the Reference Court with regard to apportionment of compensation, due to the fact there is no specific material on the basis of which the issue with regard to apportionment could be effectively determined.

¶29

Consequently, this appeal is partly allowed, in the aforesaid

¶30

terms.

¶31

( SATISH KUMAR MITTAL ) JUDGE

¶32

February 02, 2011 ( M. JEYAPAUL ) ndj JUDGE

Urinder Singh and Ors. v. State of Pb. and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Urinder Singh and Ors. v. State of Pb. and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Suresh Kumar Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Amar Kaur Vs Hindustan Petroleum Corp. Ltd.

Surinder Singh Rana (Retd) Vs Haryana Urban Development Authority & Ors.

Gram Panchayat Vs Mahender etc.

Supreet Kaur & Ors. Vs Ssp Amritsar

Sudershan Kumar Vs Chaudhary Charan Singh Hy. Agri. Uni. and Ors.