High Court Punjab-Haryana High Court

Union Of India And Another vs Unknown on 17 September, 2008

Punjab-Haryana High Court
Union Of India And Another vs Unknown on 17 September, 2008
               IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                        AT CHANDIGARH


                                    R.F.A. No. 1780 of 1989
                                    Date of decision: September 17, 2008

Union of India and another
                                                              .. Appellants
            v.
Charan Dass and others
                                                              .. Respondents
CORAM:        HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL

Present:      None
Rajesh Bindal J.

The appellants are in appeal appeal before this Court against the
award dated 11.4.1989, passed by learned Additional District Judge, Gurdaspur
for reduction in the amount of compensation awarded to respondent No.1 on
account of acquisition of super structure.

Briefly, the facts are that super structure in question situated in the
revenue estate of Village Sangher, Tehsil Pathankot, District Gurdaspur was
acquired vide notification dated 8.7.1977 issued under Section 4 of the Land
Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, `the Act’). The same was followed by
notification under Section 6 of the Act on 20.4.1978. The Land Acquisition
Collector (for short, `the Collector’) gave award of Rs. 2,450/- pertaining to
super structure on 20.8.1980. Respondent No.1 filed objections which were
referred to the learned Court below for consideration, who keeping in view the
material placed on record by the parties, awarded compensation of Rs. 5260/-.

Respondent No.1 in the present case claimed a sum of Rs. 10,000/-
on account of acquisition of super structure and additional sum of Rs. 500/- was
claimed for shifting. However, only a sum of Rs. 2,450/- was granted by the
Collector. Keeping in view that the increase made by the learned Court below in
the amount of compensation payable on account of acquisition of super structure
was quite marginal and the acquisition having taken place around 30 years back, I
do not find any reason to interfere therein at this stage.

Accordingly, the present appeal is dismissed.

(Rajesh Bindal)
Judge
17.9.2008
mk