In this CWP, the petitioner sought to quash a 1979 land acquisition award, alleging erroneous disbursement of compensation. The Court held that factual disputes on compensation fall under Section 30 of the 1894 Act and cannot be addressed via writ jurisdiction.
Petitioner's writ petition for quashing the award was dismissed.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CWP No.640 of 2012 Date of decision:- 11.01.2012
Rattan Singh
....Petitioner
Vs.
State of Punjab and others
....Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N. JINDAL
Present: Mr. Sunny Singla, Advocate, for the petitioner.
HEMANT GUPTA, J. (Oral)
The petitioner seeks quashing of the award dated 15.11.1979 in respect of acquisition of the land acquired for Hydel Project.
The grievance of the petitioner is that the compensation has been wrongly disbursed to respondent No.4. If that is the situation, the remedy of the petitioner was under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, but such a disputed question of fact cannot be examined in a writ petition.
Dismissed.
(HEMANT GUPTA) JUDGE
(A.N. JINDAL) JUDGE January 11, 2012 ajp
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the High Court can examine a disputed question of fact regarding land compensation in a writ petition.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Rattan Singh
State of Punjab
Hemant Gupta
A.N. Jindal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
