High Court Punjab-Haryana High Court

Union Territory vs Devinder Singh And Others on 29 May, 2009

Punjab-Haryana High Court
Union Territory vs Devinder Singh And Others on 29 May, 2009
            In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh

                                             RFA No. 251 of 2006 (O&M)

                                          Date of decision : 29.5.2009

Union Territory, Chandigarh                                  .... Appellant
                                        vs
Devinder Singh and others                                    ..... Respondents
Coram:       Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal

Present:     Mr. Deepak Sharma, Advocate
             for U.T., Chandigarh.


Rajesh Bindal J.

The Union Territory 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 reduction of compensation for the acquired
land.

Briefly, the facts of the case are that Union Territory, Chandigarh
vide notification dated 3.8.1999 issued under Section 4 of the Act, acquired land
situated in the revenue estate of Villages Kajheri, Badheri and Palsora, UT
Chandigarh, for development of third phase of Chandigarh. The Land Acquisition
Collector (for short, “the Collector”) assessed the market value of the acquired
land at Rs. 12,35,383/- per acre. Dissatisfied with the award of the Collector, the
landowners/claimants filed objections. On reference under Section 18 of the Act,
the learned court below determined the market value of the acquired land @ Rs.
15,05,000/- per acre.

Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the issue raised
in the present appeal is squarely covered by the judgment of this Court in RFA
No. 4238 of 2006 – Mrs. Avtar Sachdev and others vs Union Territory,
Chandigarh
decided on 2.4.2009, whereby the compensation payable for
acquisition of land vide same notification has been further enhanced.

Since this court had further enhanced the compensation payable to
the landowners, the present appeal does not survive. Accordingly, for the
detailed reasons recorded in the aforesaid judgment, the appeal is dismissed.

29.5.2009                                               ( Rajesh Bindal)
reema                                                         Judge