Allowed

Ram Dayal Mali and Ors. v. President Tribunal Improvement Trust Jalandhar and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC27 Nov 2013CWP/15447/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a writ petition seeking modification of a land acquisition award passed by the Tribunal Improvement Trust, Jalandhar. The Court branded the petition as allowed in terms of a previous order that had modified the compensation rates and directed the payment of statutory benefits.

What did the court decide?

Compensation for acquired land to be modified as per previous order; statutory benefits under Sections 23 and 28 of the 1894 Act directed to be paid.

Ram Dayal Mali and Ors. Vs President Tribunal… — Land Acquisition | Punjab & Haryana HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

Civil Writ Petition No. 15447 of 2013

¶3

Date of decision: November 27, 2013

¶4

Ram Dayal Mali and others

¶5

... Petitioners

¶6

Vs.

¶7

President, Tribunal Improvement Trust, Jalandhar and others

¶8

... Respondents

¶9

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURINDER GUPTA

¶10

1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

¶11

2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

¶12

Present: Mr. Baljinder Singh, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Sanjiv Verma, Advocate for respondents No.2 and 3.

¶13

Surya Kant, J (Oral)

¶14

The petitioners seek modification of the Award dated 1.12.2012 passed by the Tribunal, Improvement Trust, Jalandhar, granting compensation @ `23,76,000/- per acre along with statutory benefits, in respect of their acquired land for '170 Acre Development Scheme' of Improvement Trust, Jalandhar.

¶15

Learned counsel for the parties are ad idem that against the same award, a bunch of writ petitions including writ petition No. 11257 of 2013 have since been allowed in part by this Court, vide order dated 31.10.2013, operative part whereof reads as under :-

¶16

“36. In view of the discussion above, the writ petitions are partly allowed, the compensation of the acquired land as awarded by the Tribunal is modified to the extent as follows:

¶17

(i) For the land abutting by-pass to the extent of 240 feet depth, the compensation is allowed @ _26180/- per Marla i.e._ 41,88,800/- per acre.

¶18

Deepak Kumar 2013.12.19 12:33 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document which has been signed by the Hon'ble Bench High Court, Chandigarh

¶19

Civil Writ Petition No. 15447 of 2013

¶20

-2-

¶21

(ii) For the land recorded as gairmumkin chappar (pond), the compensation is awarded @ _18545/per Marla i.e._ 29,67,200/- per acre.

¶22

(iii) For the remaining land the compensation is allowed @ _21816/- per Marla i.e._ 3490560/- per acre.

¶23

37. The claimants shall also be entitled to the statutory benefits as provided under Sections 23 and 28 of the 1894 Act on the difference of compensation allowed by the Tribunal and awarded by this Court. The claim for the enhancement of compensation for the trees (fruit bearing and non-fruit bearing) and super-structure are declined.”

¶24

The present writ petition is accordingly allowed in the same

¶25

terms.

¶26

(Surya Kant) Judge

¶27

November 27, 2013 (Surinder Gupta) deepak Judge

¶28

Deepak Kumar 2013.12.19 12:33 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document which has been signed by the Hon'ble Bench High Court, Chandigarh

Ram Dayal Mali and Ors. v. President Tribunal Improvement Trust Jalandhar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Dayal Mali and Ors. v. President Tribunal Improvement Trust Jalandhar 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

Sada Ram Vs State of Haryana

Union of India & Ors. Vs Om Parkash & Anr.

Avinashi Lal Vs Union of India & Ors.

Navdeep Singh Vs U.O.I & Ors.

Tarsem Singh & Anr. Vs U.O.I & Ors.

Basheshar Singh Vs U.O.I & Ors.