Allowed

Nilam Kumari v. Tribunal Improvement Trust & Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC17 Dec 2013CWP/27667/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Punjab & Haryana allowed the petitioner's writ petition in the same terms as a previous related order, modifying land acquisition compensation rates and statutory benefits while declining tree and superstructure claims.

What did the court decide?

Modification of compensation rates as per the earlier order dated 31.10.2013; statutory benefits allowed on the difference; enhancement for trees and superstructure declined.

Nilam Kumari Vs Tribunal Improvement… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Punjab & Haryana HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

Civil Writ Petition No.27667 of 2013 Date of Decision : December 17, 2013

Nilam Kumari

.....Petitioner

versus

Tribunal Improvement Trust and others

¶7

.....Respondents

¶8

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

¶9

Present : Mr.Puneet Jindal, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.Pyush Kant Jain, Addl.AG, Punjab. Mr.G.S.Attariwala, Advocate for respondent Nos.1,3&4

¶10

¶11

Whether Reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

¶12

To be referred to the Reporters or not?

¶13

Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

¶14

¶15

Surya Kant, J. (Oral)

¶16

Notice of motion.

¶17

On our asking, Mr.Pyush Kant Jain, Additional AG, Punjab, accepts notice on behalf of respondent No.2 and Mr.G.S.Attariwala, Advocate, accepts notice on behalf of respondent Nos.1, 3 & 4.

¶18

Let two copies each of the writ petition be supplied to the learned State Counsel and learned counsel for respondent Nos.1, 3 & 4 during the course of day failing which this order shall be automatically recalled and the writ petition shall be deemed to have been dismissed for non-prosecution.

¶19

In view of the nature of order which we propose to pass, there is no necessity to seek any counter-reply from the respondents at this stage.

¶20

The petitioner seeks modification of the Award dated 01.12.2012 passed by the Tribunal, Improvement Trust,

¶21

Kumar Mohinder 2014.01.08 15:37 I attest to the accuracy of this order Chandigarh

¶22

[2]

¶23

CWP No.27667 of 2013

¶24

Jalandhar, granting compensation @ Rs.23,76,000/- per acre alongwith statutory benefits in respect of his land acquired for '170 Acre Development Scheme' of Improvement Trust, Jalandhar.

¶25

During the course of hearing learned counsel for the parties are ad-idem that against the same Award, a bunch of writ petitions including CWP No.11257 of 2013 (Raksha versus Tribunal Improvement Trust, Jalandhar and others) have been allowed in part by this Court vide order dated 31.10.2013, the operative part whereof reads as under:-

¶26

“........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:

¶27

(i) For the land abutting by-pass to the extent of 240 feet depth, the compensation is allowed @ Rs.26180/- per Marla i.e. Rs.41,88,800/- per acre;

¶28

(ii) For the land recorded as gairmumkin chappar (pond), the compensation is awarded @ Rs.18545/-per Marla i.e. Rs.29,67,200/- per acre;

¶29

(iii) For the remaining land the compensation is allowed @ Rs.21816/- per Marla i.e. Rs. 3490560/- per acre.

¶30

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

¶31

Kumar Mohinder 2014.01.08 15:37 I attest to the accuracy of this order Chandigarh

¶32

CWP No.27667 of 2013

¶33

[3]

¶34

enhancement of compensation for the trees (fruit bearing and non-fruit bearing) and superstructure are declined........”

¶35

The instant writ petition is accordingly allowed in

¶36

part in the same terms.

¶37

Dasti.

¶38

(SURYA KANT) JUDGE

¶39

December 17, 2013 (SURINDER GUPTA) Mohinder JUDGE

¶40

Kumar Mohinder 2014.01.08 15:37 I attest to the accuracy of this order Chandigarh

Nilam Kumari v. Tribunal Improvement Trust & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nilam Kumari v. Tribunal Improvement Trust & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rupali Mahajan Vs Pgimer, Sector 12, Chandigarh and Ors.

Santosh Rani & Ors. Vs State of Haryana & Ors.

Amit and Another Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Harshvardhan Memorial Charitable Trust and Ors. Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Sandeep Kumar & Ors. Vs State of Haryana & Ors.

Punjab State Agricultural Marketing Board & Anr. Vs Surinder Kumar