Posted On by &filed under High Court, Punjab-Haryana High Court.


Punjab-Haryana High Court
Phool Singh And Others vs State Of Haryana And Another on 18 December, 2008
              In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh

                                             R. F. A No. 38 of 1992 (O&M)


Phool Singh and others                                        ..... Appellants
                                        vs
State of Haryana and another                                  ..... Respondents
Coram:       Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal


Present:     Mr. R. A. Yadav, Advocate, for the appellants.

Mr. Lokesh Sinhal, Additional Advocate General, Haryana.

Rajesh Bindal J.

The landowners are 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’) seeking enhancement of compensation for the acquired
land.

Briefly, the facts of the case are that the State of Haryana vide
notification dated 12.10.1983 issued under Section 4 of the Act, acquired the land
situated in revenue estate of Village Islampur, Tehsil and District Gurgaon, for
Wireless Transmitting Station, Gurgaon. The Land Acquisition Collector assessed
the market value of the land at Rs. 70,000/- per acre for chahi, Rs. 50,000/- per
acre for albrani, Rs. 35,000/- per acre for bhood, Rs. 25,000/- per acre for banjar
and Rs. 15,000/- per acre for gair mumkin kind of land. On reference under
Section 18 of the Act, the learned court below vide award dated 8.11.1991,
determined the market value of the acquired land @ Rs. 70/- per square yard.

Learned counsel for the parties do not dispute that the claim
made in the appeal is squarely covered by Division Bench judgment of this court
in R. F. A. No. 2 of 1991 Azad Singh vs The State of Haryana and another,
decided on 30.9.1997 wherein while dealing with L. P. A. No. 741 of 1996
pertaining to notification dated 12.10.1983, the award of the Reference Court was
upheld. The amount of compensation assessed in the present case is also in the
same terms. Accordingly, the claim made in the appeal does not survive.

For the reasons recorded in Azad Singh’s case (supra), the present
appeal is dismissed.

18.12.2008                                              ( Rajesh Bindal)
vs.                                                           Judge
 

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *

66 queries in 0.112 seconds.