Rajnikant & Others vs State Of Haryana And Others on 11 May, 2009

CWP No. 1705 of 2009                                                     1

       IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                       CHANDIGARH

                                              CWP No. 1705 of 2009
                                              Date of decision: 11.5.2009

Rajnikant & others

                                                                    ...Petitioners

                                    Versus

State of Haryana and others

                                                                  ...Respondents

CORAM: HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL
HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN

Present: Mr. Anil Ksheterpal, Advocate
for the petitioner.

Ms. Palika Monga, AAG, Haryana

-.-

ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J. (oral)

1. This petition seeks direction for payment of compensation as

assessed by the Land Acquisition Collector.

2. Land of the petitioners was acquired in pursuance of

notification dated 30.5.2005 under Section 4 and notification dated

22.5.2006 under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The Land

Acquisition Collector made award dated 16.7.2007 determining

compensation for land, in the municipal limits, @ Rs.20 lac per acre. The

petitioners were paid compensation @ Rs.10 lac per acre. As per letter dated

24.10.2008, Annexure P-8, the Land Acquisition Collector stated as under:-

“…As per the aforesaid award, the land of the applicants has

been shown outside the municipal limits whereas, as per the

report of Municipal Council contained in letter No. 563/B1
CWP No. 1705 of 2009 2

dated 28.07.2007, 562/B1 dated 28.07.2007 and 564/B1 dated

28.07.2007, received through your office, Khasra No. 33//15,

34//11, 33//6, 34//10, 35//21/2, 26//25/2, 33//5, 34//1 and 26 fall

within the municipal limits.”

3. In view of above, it is submitted that the petitioners are entitled

to compensation at the rate awarded for land within municipal limits.

4. Learned counsel for the State is unable to dispute the factual

aspect and merely states that the petitioners should be relegated to the

remedy of reference.

5. In view of admitted facts, we do not find any merit in the

objection raised on behalf of the State.

6. Accordingly, we allow this petition and direct that the

petitioners be paid compensation due within two months from the date of

receipt of a copy of this order.

7. The petition is disposed of.

                                             (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL)
                                                 JUDGE


11.5.2009                                    (JITENDRA CHAUHAN)
mk                                                JUDGE