R. F. A No. 350 of 1987 1
In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh
R. F. A No. 350 of 1987 (O&M)
Date of decision : 08.9.2008
Ishwar Chand ..... Appellant
vs
State of Haryana and others ..... Respondents
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: None for the appellants.
Mr. Rajiv Kawatra, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Haryana,
for respondent no. 1.
None for respondent nos. 2 and 3.
Mr. C. B. Goel, Advocate, for respondent no. 4.
Rajesh Bindal J.
Challenge in the present appeal is to the award of the learned
court below whereby claim made by the appellants for apportionment of
compensation on account of acquisition of land belonging to respondent no.
3 was dismissed.
Briefly, the facts are that vide Notification dated 25.6.1984,
under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, the State of Haryana
acquired 124 kanals 17 marlas of land for setting up 132 K. V. Sub-Station
at Kaul at the expense of Haryana State Electricity Board. The award was
announced by the Collector on 17.4.1985. The appellant filed objection
petition on 25.5.1985 claiming that he was occupying the land as tenant
since 15.11.1982 on payment of 1/3rd batai or rent @ of Rs. 700/- per acre
per annum. On the basis thereof, a claim for apportionment of compensation
was put.
Another fact which is required to be noticed is that Gopala and
Risala filed another objection petition seeking apportionment of
compensation claiming that in fact they were cultivating the land in question
as tenant. As far as the claim of the appellant is concerned, the learned court
R. F. A No. 350 of 1987 2
below framed issues no. 9 and 10 to determine as to whether the appellant
was occupying the land in dispute as tenant and as to whether he was
entitled to get compensation. While dealing with these issues, the learned
court below opined that the appellant had not been able to make out a case
of tenancy to claim apportionment of compensation. Accordingly the same
were dismissed.
The appeal was taken up for hearing on various dates, however,
the appellant remained unrepresented.
Today the case was taken up along with other cases arising out
of same acquisition. The appellant again remained unrepresented.
The appeal is dismissed for non-prosecution.
08.9.2008 ( Rajesh Bindal) vs. Judge