Dismissed

Amrit Pal Singh etc. v. Baldev Singh etc.

Punjab & Haryana HC6 Mar 2014RFA/1903/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

On a reference under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, this Court upheld the Reference Court's decision that appellants were entitled only to 2/3rd share of compensation for tubewell, bore and trees, as they were joint owners and failed to prove exclusive ownership.

What did the court decide?

Affirmed the Reference Court's award of 2/3rd share of compensation to appellants and 1/3rd share to respondents.

Amrit Pal Singh etc. Vs Baldev Singh etc. — Land Acquisition | Punjab & Haryana HC (2014)

¶1

RFA No. 1903 of 2004 (O&M)

¶2

-1-

¶3

In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh

¶4

Regular First Appeal No. 1903 of 2004 (O&M) Date of Decision: 6.3.2014.

¶5

Amritpal Singh and another

¶6

.......Appellants

¶7

Versus

¶8

Baldev Singh and others

¶9

.......Respondents

¶10

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA

¶11

Present: Mr. Naresh Kaushal, Advocate for the appellants.

¶12

None for respondents No. 1 and 2.

¶13

Mr. P.S.Mattewal, Addl. A.G., Punjab.

¶14

¶15

SABINA, J.

¶16

Land in village Sohana along with super structure and trees was acquired for industrial purposes. Land Acquisition Collector awarded compensation to the tune of ` 13,243/regarding tubewell, bore and trees in question. The Appellants sought references under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 ('Act' for short) alleging that they were exclusive owners of the tubewell, bore and trees in question.

¶17

The case of respondents No. 1 and 2, on the other hand, was that the parties were joint owners in possession of the suit land to the extent of half share each.

¶18

On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the Additional District Judge:-

¶19

Who is entitled to receive the amount of compensation and to which extent ? OPParties.

¶20

Singh Gurpreet 2014.03.13 10:29 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh

¶21

RFA No. 1903 of 2004 (O&M)

¶22

-2-

¶23

2. Relief.

¶24

In support of their case, parties led their evidence.

¶25

Undisputedly, appellants had purchased 2/3^rd share out of khasra Nos. 37//20/2, 21 and 43//1/1 whereas the remaining 1/3^rd share was owned by Baldev Singh and Hari Chand. Appellants had failed to place on record any document showing that they were exclusive owners of the tubewell in question nor had produced on record any electricity bills to show that they were paying the electricity charges, if any. A perusal of Ex. A-1, sale deed, reveals that appellants had purchased 2/3^rd share out of khasra No. 37//20/2 (3-0), 21(7-4) 43//1/1 (5-8). Thus, the appellants had purchased 10 kanals 8 marlas of land out of total 15 kanals 12 marlas of land. In fact, appellant Amritpal Singh, in his cross-examination, had also admitted that he had purchased land to the extent of 2/3^rd share i.e. 10 kanals 8 marlas of land out of 15 kanals of land. As per the revenue record, the land was jointly possessed by the co-sharers.

¶26

In these circumstances, the learned Reference Court rightly held that the appellants were entitled to receive 2/3^rd share out of the amount of compensation as their share and respondents No. 1 and 2 were entitled to get 1/3^rd share out of the compensation amount.

¶27

No ground for interference is made out. Dismissed.

¶28

(SABINA) JUDGE

¶29

March 06, 2014 Gurpreet

¶30

Singh Gurpreet 2014.03.13 10:29 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh

Amrit Pal Singh etc. v. Baldev Singh etc.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Amrit Pal Singh etc. v. Baldev Singh 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

Union of India Vs Steel Authority of India Ltd.

Pb. Financial Corporation Vs M/S Poonam Electronics

Vijay Sajnani Vs Gautam Singhi etc.

(O&M)Dr.Sat Pal Batra Vs Ashwani Mehta and Anr.

(O&M) Shanti Vs Narinder Kumar and Others

(O&M) United India Insurance Co. Limited Behror Branch Vs Smt. Pushpa Devi Widow of Late Sh. Sat Pal and Others