R.F.A. No. 249 of 1989 1
In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh
R.F.A. No. 249 of 1989 (O&M)
Date of decision : 24.9.2008
The State of Punjab ....Appellant
vs.
Hari Krishan and others ...Respondents
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: Mr. M. S. Sindhu, Additional Advocate General, Punjab. Rajesh Bindal J.
The State is in appeal before this court against the award of the
learned court below passed under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act,
1894 (for short, ‘the Act’) on 20.7.1988, seeking reduction in compensation
for the acquired land.
Briefly, the facts are that vide notification dated 20.11.1980,
issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, ‘the
Act’), the State of Punjab acquired land measuring 303.42 acres situated
within the revenue estate of Village Mataur, Tehsil Kharar, District Ropar,
for development and utilisation of land as residential and commercial area
in the Urban Estate. The Land Acquisition Collector vide his award dated
12.7.1984 assessed the market value of the land as under:-
Banjar/Rasta Rs. 25,000/- per acre
Chhappar Rs. 10,000/- per acre
All other types of land Rs. 28,000/- per acre
Dissatisfied with the award of the Land Acquisition Collector,
the landowners filed objections. On reference under Section 18 of the Act,
the learned court below vide award dated 20.7.1988, determined the market
value of the acquired land as under:-
Banjar/Rasta/ Chhappar Rs. 25,000/- per acre
All kinds of land other than Rs. 80,000/- per acre
Banjar/Rasta/Chhapper
Learned Additional Advocate General, Punjab, very fairly
conceded that the issue involved in the present appeal is squarely covered
R.F.A. No. 249 of 1989 2by the judgment of this court in R.F.A. No. 2423 of 1987 – The State of
Punjab vs Baljit Singh, decided on 24.7.1989, whereby the compensation
awarded by the learned court below was further enhanced to Rs. 90,000/-
per acre.
Since the compensation for acquisition of land was enhanced
by this court in Baljit Singh’s case (supra), the present appeal does not
survive, accordingly, the same is dismissed.
24.9.2008 ( Rajesh Bindal) vs. Judge