The petitioner challenged an excess demand of ₹40,000 regarding land acquisition compensation. The Court held that the final scheme rate, revised in 2014, applied to additional charges despite the Letter of Allotment reflecting an earlier tentative rate, and dismissed the petition.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CWP-14405-2017 (O&M) Date of decision:- 14.12.2017
Madan Lal Saini
...Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and others
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.J. VAZIFDAR, CHIEF JUSTICE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HARINDER SINGH SIDHU
Present:- Mr. Amandeep Saini, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
Mr. P.P.S. Thethi, Additional Advocate General, Punjab, for respondent No. 1.
Mr. Shekhar Verma, Advocate, for respondents No. 2 and 3. * * * * S.J. VAZIFDAR, C.J. (ORAL)
The petitioner has challenged the respondents’ demand
for the excess area of 05 sq yards on the price of � 25,000/- per sq yard. The petitioner contends that the respondents are entitled to charge only � 17,000/- per sq yard. Thus, the petitioner has challenged the excess demand of
� 40,000/-.
Amodh Sharma 2017.12.18 10:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh
CWP-14405-2017 (O&M)
2
under:-
“4. Additional price on account of actual measurement being more than the allotted size as per entitlement or otherwise due to delays beyond control of GMADA and as per the scheme rate will be charged extra on pro-rata basis.”
(emphasis supplied)
is the ambit of the words “scheme rate” in clause 4. The scheme rate at the time of the LoA was � 17,000/- per sq yard. It was, however, revised in the year 2014 itself to � 25,000/- per sq yard. Though it was subsequent to the allotment in favour of the original owner, it was prior to the transfer of the allotment in the petitioner’s favour. The petitioner accepted the transfer without raising any dispute in this regard. In our view, it would not make a difference even if this challenge were to be raised by the original allottee for the LoA itself states that the price was only tentative. The price was fixed under the scheme. The final rate under the scheme, and not the
Amodh Sharma 2017.12.18 10:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh
CWP-14405-2017 (O&M)
3
tentative rate stipulated in the LoA, therefore, is the scheme rate. Thus, even the original allottee would have been bound to pay this difference.
(S.J. VAZIFDAR) CHIEF JUSTICE
(HARINDER SINGH SIDHU) JUDGE
14.12.2017
Amodh
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
Amodh Sharma 2017.12.18 10:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the revised scheme rate of ₹25,000 per sq yard applied to anticipate additional charges beyond the tentative rate in the Letter of Allotment.
Madan Lal Saini
State of Punjab
S.J. VAZIFDAR
HARINDER SINGH SIDHU
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
