SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
STATE OF PUNJAB – Appellant
Versus
SURJAN SINGH – Respondent
RFA 1885/1995



RFA No. 1885 of 1995

(1)

In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh

RFA No. 1885 of 1995 (O&M)

Date of decision : 30.3.2011

State of Punjab

... Appellant

vs

Surjan Singh

..... Respondent

Coram:

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal

Present:

Mr. Yatinder Sharma, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab.

None for the respondent.

Rajesh Bindal J.

The State of Punjab is in appeal before this Court against the

award passed by learned court below seeking reduction of the amount of

compensation awarded to the respondents for the acquired land.

Briefly, the facts are that State of Punjab vide notification dated

26.5.1988 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for

short, `the Act') sought to acquire land situated in the revenue estate of

Village Chamaru, Tehsil Rajpura, District Patiala, for construction of Raj

Khand Minor. Notification under Section 6 of the Act was issued on

20.7.1988. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short, the Collector) vide

award dated 5.1.1990 assessed the market value of the acquired land @ `

60,000/- per acre for chahi, ` 50,080/- per acre for barani and ` 35,040/- per

acre for gair mumkin kind of land. Feeling dissatisfied with the award of the

Collector, the landowners filed objections. On reference under Section 18 of

the Act, the learned Court below, assessed the compensation for the

acquired land @ ` 1,15,200/- per acre for chahi, ` 96,000/- per acre for

barani, and ` 67,275/- per acre for gair mumkin kind of land. It is this award

which is impugned in the present appeal.

RFA No. 1885 of 1995

(2)

A perusal of the paper-book shows that the amount involved in

the present appeal is merely ` 1,150/-. Keeping in view that amount

involved in the present appeal is quite small and the acquisition having

taken place more than 22 years back, I do not find any reason to interfere at

this stage.

Accordingly, the present appeal is dismissed.

30.3.2011

( Rajesh Bindal)

sharmila

Judge

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top