Partly allowed

Smt Raj Kumari Sahni v. State and Ors.

Rajasthan HC6 Jul 2018CMA/565/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appeal against exclusion of additional compensation under State Amendment Act 1987. Court held appellants cannot be denied legal rights to additional compensation despite procedural blockades affecting their pending appeal when amendment came into force.

What did the court decide?

Issues fresh order to grant additional compensation under Section 56(8) of the Land Acquisition (Rajasthan Amendment) Act, 1987.

Smt Raj Kumari Sahni Vs State and Ors. — Land Acquisition | Rajasthan HC (2018)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 56512005

¶3

I. Smt. Raj Kumari Sahni W/o Late Shri T.n. Sahni , R/o 662, Adarsh Nagar, Jaipur.

¶4

Mudit Sahni S/o Late Shri T.n. Saini , Rlo 662, Adarsh Nagar, Jaipur.

¶5

3. Sanjay Sahni S/o Late Shri T.n. Saini , R/o 662, Adarsh Nagar, Jaipur. - ~

¶6

~ .>& .,.- --.
----Appellants
Versus
Rajasthan Through ,
2. Education Department Through Secretary , technical
iducation,
----Respondents
For Appellant(s) :q&$AG&4gi"' - &%%yi@I .;.:Lm...j""
For Respondent(s)

¶7

06/07/2018 - - Appellants have fil allenging the order dated 06.12.2001, whereby y the appellants for awarding them benefits in terms of State Amendment vide Rajasthan Act 8 of 1987 was dec!inea.

¶8

Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that vide State Amendment., Section 56 was added and as per clause 8 of the said provision, appellants were entitled to receive an amount in addition to the market value of the land as specified in Subsection (IA) and Sub-section (2) of Section 23 of the Act.

¶9

Learned counsel for respondents has opposed the appeal. Section 56 (8) of the State Amendment vide Rajasthan Act 8 of 1987 reads as under:-

¶10

'In a proceedings where the amount of compensation has been determined before the commencement of the Land Acquisition (Rajasthan Amendment) Act, 1987 whether by the Collector by the Court the amounts ""+&: i.n addition to the market value of the la. d-lds 4s . eslL$d--iaiSu b-section (IA) 3,";p->%.,* ..-Tgc.~ ,!&<&$ @&*&$,"f :.,:p.. and p qg2&~/.fl ~~~t~~.~~~,3ik!$fi~ %$: .- 11 be further &a A. ;<A :, w paid, ajft&%djustment of any sum pad@FIier under the &$!&ub-section, %:? by the Collector td &dP"epons A. to~hdm compensation was payable or paidcThese b' @< +@,. ** amounts :- shall be payable in every proceeding an$~~~ re'gard to every award as specified in Sub-sections (I) and (2) d Acquisition (Amendmen

¶11

In the present ca nts was acquired vide rlotification under Sec Acquisition Act, 1894 dated 30.04.1964. Awar the Reference Court on '05.11.1985. Appella this Court seeking enhancement of co d their appeal was allowed vide ordethereafter, appellants approached the Hon'ble . i,up.reme -%Zourt seeking further >g;;iP< 3 ; .*. , & .". .. , -34 4 . : =get%@. :-< <m. ; .. , j $ ., : m3, enhancement of compensation amount'<'and their appeal was allowed vide order dated 06.09.1989. The State Amendment i.e., Section 56 in question was made applicable with effect from 04.04.1987. It is the case of the appellants that when the amendment came into force their appeal was pending before this Court and thereafter, the matter remained pending in the Hon'ble Supreme Court upto 06.09.1989. However, the benefits available to the appellants as per Section 56 (8) of the State Amendment

¶12

[CMA-565/2005]

¶13

(3 of 3)

¶14

were not granted to them. The benefits available to the appellants, whose land had been compulsorily acquired, could not be denied on account of any procedural blockades. Appellants could not be denied their legal right to get additional amount of compensation as proposed vide State Amendment Section 56(8) of the Act.

¶15

In the facts and circumstances of the present case, it would

¶16

pass a fresh order it

¶17

S.Kumawat/D-44

Smt Raj Kumari Sahni v. State and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Raj Kumari Sahni v. State and Ors.

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

Bajaj Allianz General Insuranc Vs Savitri Agrawal and Ors.

Manager the United India Insurance Co. Lt Vs Manohar Singh and Ors.

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Smt Kiroshata Devi and Others

Chandra Alias Chanda and Ors. Vs Mukesh Kumar Yadav and Ors.

National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Girdhari Lal and Others

Shakeel Vs Najeem Alias Najju