Dismissed

State of Haryana etc. v. Gobind Ram etc.

Punjab & Haryana HC27 Apr 2012RSA/1770/1993

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a second appeal, the appellant, who were declared co-shares in an acquired land, challenged the decree recovering enhanced compensation in a prior suit. The High Court, finding the lower courts' reasoning free from illegality and the title findings final, dismissed the appeal.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was dismissed. The judgment and decree of the Courts below were affirmed.

State of Haryana etc. Vs Gobind Ram etc. — Land Acquisition | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

R.S.A.No.1770 of 1993

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

R.S.A.No.1770 of 1993

¶5

Date of Decision : 27.04.2012

¶6

State of Haryana & another

¶7

...Appellants

¶8

Versus

¶9

Gobind Ram (through his LRs) & another ...Respondents

¶10

CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA

¶11

Present: Ms. Palika Monga, DAG, Haryana, for the appellants.

¶12

Ms. Alka Sarin & Mr. Gautam Mittal, Advocates, for the respondents.

¶13

HEMANT GUPTA, J. (ORAL)

¶14

The defendants are in second appeal aggrieved against the judgment and decree passed by the Courts below, whereby suit for recovery of Rs.3378.13 as principal and Rs.699.59 as interest from 17.02.1981 to 02.02.1984 was decreed.

¶15

The plaintiff sought the aforesaid amount as co-sharer to the extent of half share of the land measuring 2 Kanal 7 Marla bearing khasra No.576 situated at Hissar. The said land was acquired on 30.01.1973. The Land Acquisition Collector awarded a sum of Rs.5756.23 as compensation. The plaintiff was declared owner to the extent of half share by the judgment and decree of the Civil Court dated 08.08.1979 (Ex PF and PG) in a dispute with Hardas and Chander Bhan. Such decree was affirmed by the learned first Appellate Court vide judgment and decree dated 17.02.1981 (Ex PH). The plaintiff also sought reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for claiming

¶16

R.S.A.No.1770 of 1993

¶17

¶18

enhancement of compensation, which was decided by the learned Addl. District Judge on 22.01.1978. The plaintiff has filed another suit for restraining the defendants to pay the amount of compensation. Such suit was dismissed on 31.1.1974 but in appeal, the plaintiff was granted ad injunction. Later the appeal was accepted and suit decreed vide judgment Ex PB. Such order was communicated to defendant No.2 on 25.8.1975, but the amount was still disbursed. The plaintiff claimed that enhanced compensation of Rs.3374.13 disbursed to defendant No.3 by the Land Acquisition Collector, falls to the share of the plaintiff, which is claimed in the present suit.

¶19

Learned trial Court found that the plaintiff has been declared owner to the extent of half share of the suit land and that earlier the notice of stay of disbursement of compensation was served upon the defendant. The suit has later been decreed vide judgment and decree dated 08.08.1979 (Exs.PF and PG). The Court also has taken into consideration Ex.PK, admission of Land Acquisition Collector admitting the claim of the plaintiff. The stand of the defendants that the amount of compensation was disbursed to defendant No.3 vide order dated 17.7.1982 in the absence of any direction of the Court was not accepted by the learned trial Court and consequently, the suit of the plaintiff was decreed against defendant No.3.

¶20

Two separate appeals were filed i.e. one by the plaintiff and one by defendant No.3. It was found that the plaintiff has purchased land from Basu Ram, Savitri and Ram Chander in the year 1969 in the name of Har Dass. Civil suit was filed regarding the title of the suit land and

¶21

R.S.A.No.1770 of 1993

¶22

¶23

during the pendency of the said suit, the land was acquired. There was an ad interim stay by the learned first Appellate Court dated 31.01.1974. The learned first Appellate Court found that the Civil Court has already declared the plaintiff as owner in possession to the extent of half share of the acquired land, therefore, the proportionate compensation is payable to the plaintiff. In view of the said findings, the suit was decreed against defendant Nos.1 and 2.

¶24

Once the Civil court has returned a finding that the plaintiff was owner of the suit land and the said finding has attained finality and was in the knowledge of defendant Nos.1 and 2, therefore, the amount of compensation in respect of the acquired land is payable by the defendants-appellants alone.

¶25

The reasoning given by the Courts below cannot be said to be suffering from any patent illegality or irregularity. The findings recorded by the Courts below do not give rise to any substantial question of law for consideration of this Court.

¶26

Dismissed.

¶27

27.04.2012 (HEMANT GUPTA) Vimal JUDGE

State of Haryana etc. v. Gobind Ram etc.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State of Haryana etc. v. Gobind Ram etc.

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

Bhupinder Singh etc. Vs Amrik Singh

(O&M) Resham Singh Vs Balbir Kaur etc.

Rajinder Singh Vs Nachhatter Singh

Kartar Singh Vs State of Haryana & Ors.

Punjab Agro Industries Corporation Limited Vs Jaswinder Singh Boparai and Anr.

State of Punjab etc. Vs the Janta Bricks Workshop Industrial Society Ltd.