Allowed

Bhimu @ Bhim Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC24 Dec 2015RFA/7579/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Punjab and Haryana condoned a delay of 5,150 days in filing a revision appeal regarding land acquisition compensation. The court enhanced the compensation award following the precedent set in Thuru Ram and denied interest for the delayed period.

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced by following Thuru Ram case; delay of 5,150 days condoned; interest for delay period denied.

Bhimu @ Bhim Singh & Ors. Vs State of Punjab & Ors. — Land Acquisition | Punjab & Haryana HC (2015)

¶1

RFA No.7579 of 2015

¶2

-1-

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

CM No.16159-CI of 2015 and RFA No.7579 of 2015 (O&M) Date of decision: 24.12.2015

¶5

Bhimu @ Bhim Singh (deceased) through LRs

¶6

..... Appellant

¶7

Versus

¶8

Punjab State and others

¶9

......Respondents

¶10

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL

¶11

Present: Mr. Daljeet Singh Kahlon, Advocate for Ms. Mandeep K. Kahlon, Advocate for the appellant.

¶12

Mr. Piyush Bansal, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab.

¶13

RAJESH BINDAL, J

¶14

The landowner is in appeal before this court against the award of the learned court below seeking enhancement of compensation for the acquired land. Along with the appeal, application seeking condonation of delay of 5,150 days in filing thereof has also been filed.

¶15

Briefly, the facts are that vide Notification dated 1.2.1993 published on 3.2.1993, issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, 'the Act'), the land situated in the area of Village Rajpura, Tehsil Pathankot, District Gurdaspur, was sought to be acquired by the State of Punjab for construction of Shahpur Kandi Hydel Channel. Notification under Section 6 of the Act was issued on 17.9.1993. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short, 'the Collector'), vide his award dated 21.12.1995, assessed the market value of the acquired land. Dissatisfied with the award of the Collector, the landowner filed objections. On reference under Section 18 of the Act, the learned court below vide award dated 13.8.2001, dismissed the reference petition. The aforesaid award has been impugned by the landowner in the present appeal seeking further enhancement.

¶16

CM No.16159-CI of 2015

¶17

After hearing learned counsel for the parties and considering the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in I mrat Lal and others vs Land

¶18

SHARMILA 2016.01.05 11:24 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document. Chandigarh

¶19

RFA No.7579 of 2015

¶20

-2-

¶21

Acquisition Collector and others 2015(2) RCR (Civil) 437 and Dhiraj Singh (D) Tr. LRs. vs Haryana State and others 2015(2) RCR (Civil) 507, delay of 5,150 days in filing the appeal is condoned. However, for the period of delay, the appellant shall not be entitled to interest on the enhanced compensation for the period of delay in filing the appeal.

¶22

Civil misc. stands disposed of.

¶23

RFA No. 7579 of 2015

¶24

Learned counsel for the landowner submitted that the claim made in the present appeal is squarely covered by judgment of this court in RFA No. 4525 of 2001 - Thuru Ram vs State of Punjab and others , decided on 16.3.2009, whereby compensation for the land acquired vide same notification was further enhanced.

¶25

Learned counsel for the State did not dispute the aforesaid factual position.

¶26

Accordingly, for the reasons recorded in Thuru Ram's case (supra), the present appeal is disposed of in the same terms. However, the landowner shall not be entitled to interest for the period of delay in filing the appeal i.e. 5,150 days.

¶27

(RAJESH BINDAL) JUDGE

¶28

24.12.2015 sharmila

¶29

SHARMILA 2016.01.05 11:24 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document. Chandigarh

Bhimu @ Bhim Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bhimu @ Bhim Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Urmila @ Pinki Vs Gulshan Rai and Ors.

Eros Fabricators Pvt. Ltd. Vs ....

Madan Gopal & Ors. Vs Union Territory, Chandigarh

Megh Raj @ Sahi Ram Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Gurmukh Singh Vs Union of India

Chand Kaur and Ors. Vs State of Haryana etc.