Remanded

Tej Kaur v. State of Punjab

Punjab & Haryana HC9 May 2014CWP/12183/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed five writ petitions challenging the dismissal of land acquisition compensation references. The Court held that bifurcating a compact strip of land to award different compensation rates without intelligible distinction was discriminatory. The matter was remanded to the Tribunal for fresh adjudication.

What did the court decide?

Impugned award of 23.03.2006 set aside; case remanded to Tribunal for fresh adjudication.

Tej Kaur Vs State of Punjab — Land Acquisition | Punjab & Haryana HC (2014)

¶1

CWP No.12183 of 2007

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

1. Civil Writ Petition No. 12183 of 2007(O&M) Date of Decision: May 9, 2014. Tej Kaur ...... PETITIONER(s) Versus State of Punjab and others ...... RESPONDENT (s) 2. Civil Writ Petition No. 12440 of 2007(O&M) . Jaswinder Kaur and another ...... PETITIONER(s) Versus State of Punjab and others ...... RESPONDENT (s) 3. Civil Writ Petition No. 402 of 2007 (O&M) . Bakshish Kaur ...... PETITIONER(s) Versus The District Judge, District Kapurthala and others ...... RESPONDENT (s) 4. Civil Writ Petition No. 470 of 2007(O&M) . Rajinder Kaur and others ...... PETITIONER(s) Versus The District Judge, District Kapurthala and others ......RESPONDENT (s) 5. Civil Writ Petition No. 12214 of 2007(O&M) . Narinderjit Kaur ...... PETITIONER(s) Versus State of Punjab and others ...... RESPONDENT (s)

¶5

Singh Omkar 2014.07.03 18:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

¶6

CWP No.12183 of 2007

¶7

¶8

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE LISA GILL

¶9

Present: Mr. Amit Jain, Advocate for the petitioners.

¶10

Mr. P.S.Bajwa, Addl.AG, Punjab.

¶11

Mr.Alok Kumar Jain, Advocate for respondent – Improvement Trust, Phagwara. (in CWP No.12183, 12440 and 12214 of 2007)

¶12

Mr. Rupinder S.Khsola, Advocate for respondent – Improvement Trust, Phagwara. (in CWP No.402 and 470 of 2007)

¶13

¶14

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

¶15

To be referred to the reports or not?

¶16

Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest?

¶17

¶18

SURYA KANT, J. (Oral)

¶19

This order shall dispose of CWP No.12183 of 2007, CWP No.12440 of 2007, CWP No.470 of 2007, CWP No.402 of 2007 and CWP No.12214 of 2007 as all these cases are directed against the award dated 23.03.2006 passed by the Land Acquisition Tribunal, Phagwara (hereinafter referred to as the 'Tribunal') whereby the land references seeking enhancement of compensation for the acquired land have been dismissed.

¶20

[2] The facts may be noticed briefly.

¶21

[3] The State of Punjab acquired land measuring 140 Kanals 17 Marlas situated in the revenue estate of village Phagwara Shirki, Tehsil Phagwara, District Kapurthala for the development of Scheme No.10 by the Improvement Trust, Phagwara. Notification under Section 36 of the Punjab Town

¶22

Singh Omkar 2014.07.03 18:11Improvement Act, 1922 (hereinafter referred to as the '1922 Act') was issued on I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

¶23

CWP No.12183 of 2007

¶24

¶25

14.07.2000 and the Development Scheme was approved under Section 42 of the 1922 Act vide notification dated 20.06.2001.

¶26

[4] The Land Acquisition Collector vide award dated 19.06.2003 bifurcated the acquired land into two parts, namely, Chahi and Gair Mumkin Abadi . For the Chahi land measuring 119 Kanals 7 Marlas, he assessed compensation at the rate of 12,850/- per Marla while for the smaller area of _Gair Mumkin Abadi_ measuring 342 Marlas, he awarded compensation at a higher rate of 25,700/- per marla.

¶27

[5] The aggrieved petitioner-land owners filed references under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the '1894 Act') before the Tribunal, which have been dismissed vide impugned award dated 23.03.2006.

¶28

[6] Besides contending that in view of sale-instances produced on record they are entitled to a higher amount of compensation, the petitioners also claim that there is no rationale to award compensation at a lesser rate for the Chahi land. It is urged that since a compact piece of land was acquired for singular public purpose, namely, the development of a Residential Scheme, the bifurcation of the land without any distinguishable features for the limited purpose of awarding compensation at different rates is per se discriminatory.

¶29

[7] Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the impugned award, it appears to us that the Tribunal has failed to make out any intelligible distinction between two parcels of land for awarding compensation

¶30

at different rates. It is pertinent to mention that the Land Acquisition Collector had bifurcated the acquired land only on the basis of entries in the revenue

¶31

Singh Omkar 2014.07.03 18:11I attest to the accuracy andrecord, which can not be a valid ground to bring in artificial classification integrity of this document Chandigarh

¶32

CWP No.12183 of 2007

¶33

¶34

within a small compact piece of land acquired for one and the same public purpose.

¶35

[8] Things would have been different if keeping in view the advantages or disadvantages of location of the Gair Mumkin Abadi land viz-aviz the Chahi land, that the compensation was awarded at different rates. However, in the absence of any such reasons assigned by either the Land Acquisition Collector or the Tribunal, it is difficult to accept that there was any qualitative difference in potentiality of the two parcels of acquired land.

¶36

[9] The distinction, if any, can possibly be drawn on the basis of the site plan of the area or, if need be, on consideration of the additional evidence that may be adduced by the parties. In this view of the matter, it may not be expedient for us to express any final view on merits rather we deem it appropriate to remand the case to the Tribunal for fresh adjudication.

¶37

[10] For the reasons aforesaid, we allow this writ petition; set aside the impugned award dated 23.03.2006 passed by the Tribunal and remand the case to the Tribunal to decide the same afresh in the light of the observations made hereinabove.

¶38

[11] The parties are directed to appear before the Tribunal on 28.07.2014.

¶39

( SURYA KANT ) JUDGE

¶40

( LISA GILL ) May 9, 2014. JUDGE ‘om’

¶41

Singh Omkar 2014.07.03 18:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

Tej Kaur v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tej Kaur v. State of Punjab

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

Som Nath Vs State of Punjab and Another

Chhinder Pal Singh & Ors. Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Surjit Kaur & Ors. Vs Union of India & Ors.

Narinderjit Kaur Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Balbir and Others Vs State of Haryana and Others

Virender Singh Katarya and Ors. Vs State of Haryana and Ors.