High Court Punjab-Haryana High Court

Punjab Wakaf Board vs The Punjab State And Another on 10 December, 2008

Punjab-Haryana High Court
Punjab Wakaf Board vs The Punjab State And Another on 10 December, 2008
            R. F. A No. 1932 of 1990                           (1)

           In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh

                                       R. F. A No. 1932 of 1990 (O&M)

                                            Date of decision : 10.12.2008

Punjab Wakaf Board                                      ..... Appellant
                                       vs
The Punjab State and another                            ..... Respondents
Coram:      Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal

Present:    None for the appellant.

Mr. Vivek Chauhan, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab.

Rajesh Bindal J.

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

Briefly, the facts are that the State of Punjab acquired the land
sitauted within the revenue estate of Village Dargah Shah Khalil-Bin-Walid,
Tehsil and District Ropar, vide notification dated 22.2.1985 issued under
Section 4 of the Act, for construction of Sutlej Yamuna Link Canal. The
Land Acquisition Collector (for short, “the Collector”) vide his award dated
23.1.1986 assessed the market value of the land at Rs. 12,000/- per acre. On
reference under Section 18 of the Act, the learned court below vide award
dated 2.2.1990, upheld the award of the Collector.

A perusal of the impugned award shows that the appellant
placed reliance only on an earlier award dated 1.6.1988 of the Reference
Court pertaining to the acquisition of land of different Village Ropar,
Hadbast No. 44. Except this, there is no other material on record in the form
of sale-deed to show that the value of the acquired land in the vicinity was
much more than what was determined by the Collector, the award of which
was upheld by the learned Reference Court. In the absence of comparability
of the land pertaining to the award sought to be relied upon, the same could
not be made basis for determination of fair value of the acquired land in the
present case.

R. F. A No. 1932 of 1990 (2)

Prima-facie, I do not find any merit in the present appeal,
however, as the learned counsel for the appellant is not available, the same
is dismissed for non-prosecution.

10.12.2008                                          ( Rajesh Bindal)
vs.                                                      Judge