{"id":44452,"date":"2009-08-20T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-08-19T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-r-no-5675-of-2007-vs-land-acquisition-collector-and-on-20-august-2009"},"modified":"2017-05-10T14:25:35","modified_gmt":"2017-05-10T08:55:35","slug":"c-r-no-5675-of-2007-vs-land-acquisition-collector-and-on-20-august-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-r-no-5675-of-2007-vs-land-acquisition-collector-and-on-20-august-2009","title":{"rendered":"C.R. No. 5675 Of 2007 vs Land Acquisition Collector And … on 20 August, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Punjab-Haryana High Court<\/div>\n
C.R. No. 5675 Of 2007 vs Land Acquisition Collector And … on 20 August, 2009<\/div>\n
C.R. No. 5675 of 2007                                             [1]\n\n\n\n\n       IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT\n\n                            CHANDIGARH.\n\n                              Date of Decision: August 20, 2009\n\n1.                            C.R. No. 5675 of 2007\n\nSadhu Singh\n\n                                    .....Petitioner\n\n              Vs.\n\nLand Acquisition Collector and another\n\n                                    .....Respondents\n\n2                             C.R. No. 5676 of 2007\n\nChhota Singh and others\n\n                                    .....Petitioners\n\n              Vs.\n\nLand Acquisition Collector and another\n\n                              .....Respondents\n\n3.                            C.R. No. 5677 of 2007\n\nGurdial Kaur and others\n\n                                    .....Petitioners\n\n              Vs.\n\nLand Acquisition Collector and another\n\n                              .....Respondents\n\n4.                            C.R. No. 5678 of 2007\n\nSumeet Kumar and another\n C.R. No. 5675 of 2007                                 [2]\n\n\n\n\n                              .....Petitioners\n\n             Vs.\n\nLand Acquisition Collector and another\n\n                              .....Respondents\n\n5.                            C.R. No. 5679 of 2007\n\nRoshan Lal\n\n                                    .....Petitioner\n\n             Vs.\n\nLand Acquisition Collector and another\n\n                              .....Respondents\n\n6.                            C.R. No. 5680 of 2007\n\nRaj Nath\n\n                                    .....Petitioner\n\n             Vs.\n\nLand Acquisition Collector and another\n\n                              .....Respondents\n\n7.                            C.R. No. 5681 of 2007\n\nTara Singh\n\n                                    .....Petitioner\n\n             Vs.\n\nLand Acquisition Collector and another\n\n\n                              .....Respondents\n C.R. No. 5675 of 2007                                      [3]\n\n\n\n\n8.                            C.R. No. 5682 of 2007\n\nParveen Kumar                              .....Petitioner\n\n            Vs.\n\nLand Acquisition Collector and another\n\n                              .....Respondents\n\n9.                            C.R. No. 317 of 2008\n\nAshok Kumar\n\n                                    .....Petitioner\n\n            Vs.\n\nLand Acquisition Collector and others\n\n                                    .....Respondents\n\n10.                           C.R. No. 6964 of 2006\n\nPunjab State Agriculture Marketing Board\n\n                                    .....Petitioner\n\n            Vs.\n\nState of Punjab and others\n\n                              .....Respondents\n\n11.                           C.R. No. 6965 of 2006\n\nPunjab State Agriculture Marketing Board\n\n                                    .....Petitioner\n\n            Vs.\n\nState of Punjab and others\n\n                              .....Respondents\n C.R. No. 5675 of 2007                                [4]\n\n\n\n\n12.                          C.R. No. 6966 of 2006\n\nPunjab State Agriculture Marketing Board\n\n                                   .....Petitioner\n\n            Vs.\n\nState of Punjab and others\n\n                             .....Respondents\n\n13.                          C.R. No. 6967 of 2006\n\nPunjab State Agriculture Marketing Board\n\n                                   .....Petitioner\n\n            Vs.\n\nState of Punjab and others\n\n                             .....Respondents\n\n14.                          C.R. No. 6968 of 2006\n\nPunjab State Agriculture Marketing Board\n\n                                   .....Petitioner\n\n            Vs.\n\nState of Punjab and others\n\n                             .....Respondents\n\n15.                          C.R. No. 6969 of 2006\n\nPunjab State Agriculture Marketing Board\n\n                                   .....Petitioner\n\n            Vs.\n\nState of Punjab and others\n\n                             .....Respondents\n C.R. No. 5675 of 2007                                                  [5]\n\n\n\n\n16.                            C.R. No. 6970 of 2006\n\nPunjab State Agriculture Marketing Board\n\n                                    .....Petitioner\n\n            Vs.\n\nState of Punjab and others\n\n                               .....Respondents\n\n17.                            C.R. No. 6971 of 2006\n\nPunjab State Agriculture Marketing Board\n\n                                    .....Petitioner\n\n            Vs.\n\nState of Punjab and others\n\n                               .....Respondents\n\n\nCORAM:      HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.S. BEDI.\n\n                         -.-\n\nPresent:-   Mr.Pawan Bansal, Advocate for the petitioners in CR Nos.\n            5675, 5676, 5677, 5678, 5679 & 5682 of 2007 and for Pvt.\n            Respondents in CR Nos. 6964, 6965, 6966, 6967, 6969 &\n            6970 of 2006.\n\n            Mr. R.K. Singla, Advocate for the petitioners in CR Nos.5680,\n            5681 of 2007 and 317 of 2008.\n\n            Mr. H.S. Riar, Senior Advocate with\n            Mr. Sameer Sachdeva, Advocate\n            for the Board in CR Nos. 6964, 6965, 6966, 6967, 6968, 6969,\n            6970, 6971 of 2006.\n\n                  -.-\n\n\nM.M.S. BEDI, J.\n<\/pre>\n
 C.R. No. 5675 of 2007                                                   [6]<\/p>\n
            This order will dispose of Civil Revision Nos. 5675, 5676,<\/p>\n
5677, 5678, 5679, 5680, 5681, 5682 of 2007 and 317 of 2008.filed by the<\/p>\n
claimant- petitioners and Civil Revision Nos. 6964, 6965, 6966, 6967, 6968,<\/p>\n
6969, 6970, 6971 of 2006, filed by Punjab Mandi Board (hereinafter<\/p>\n
referred to as Board- petitioner). All the revision petitions have been taken<\/p>\n
up together for adjudication as these arise out of the same acquisition<\/p>\n
proceedings arisen pursuant to notification under Section 4 of the Land<\/p>\n
Acquisition Act, 1894, (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’), dated January<\/p>\n
11, 1999 for acquiring land of the land owners measuring 20 kanals 12<\/p>\n
marls within the Municipal limits of Maur Mandi, District Bathinda.<\/p>\n
            In the revision petitions filed by the claimants, facts have been<\/p>\n
taken from CR No. 5675 of 2007 and the revision petitions filed by Punjab<\/p>\n
Mandi Board, facts have been taken from CR No. 6970 of 2006.<\/p>\n
            Brief facts relevant for adjudication of the controversy are that<\/p>\n
20 kanals 12 marlas of land was acquired by the Government to establish<\/p>\n
new Grain Market. Notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued on<\/p>\n
January 11, 1999 which was published in extraordinary gazette on January<\/p>\n
11, 1999.    After publication, objections were heard on May 7, 1999.<\/p>\n
Thereafter notification under Section 6 of the Act was published on August<\/p>\n
12, 1999 in the Government gazette of the said date. The Land Acquisition<\/p>\n
Collector vide his award No. 5 dated August 9, 2001 awarded compensation<\/p>\n
for the land upto the depth of 36 karms at the rate of Rs.5 lacs per acre and<\/p>\n
after 36 karms for remaining land at the rate of Rs.3.85 lacs per acre to the<\/p>\n
claimants besides determining the compensation for super-structure. Not
\n C.R. No. 5675 of 2007                                                     [7]<\/p>\n
satisfied with the award, large number of claimants sought reference under<\/p>\n
Section 18 of the Act which was sent by the Collector for determination. It<\/p>\n
is made clear that the claimant- petitioners did not opt to file reference<\/p>\n
under Section 18 of the Act but they had received the amount of award<\/p>\n
determined under Section 11 of the Act under protest. The Additional<\/p>\n
District Judge, Bathinda in reference under Section 18 of the Act enhanced<\/p>\n
the compensation amount to Rs.450\/- per sq. yards for the land in the first<\/p>\n
belt abutting main road upto 36 karms depth vide award dated April 21,<\/p>\n
2005. However, in view of the enhancement of compensation granted by<\/p>\n
Additional District Judge, Bathinda, vide order dated April 21, 2005, the<\/p>\n
claimant- petitioners submitted their applications under Section 28-A of the<\/p>\n
Act to the Land Acquisition Collector who vide order dated July 4, 2006,<\/p>\n
allowed the claim- compensation at the same enhanced rate as awarded by<\/p>\n
Additional District Judge, Bathinda. The order dated July 4, 2006 is passed<\/p>\n
under Section 28-A of the Act on the basis of the award dated April 21,<\/p>\n
2005 passed by the Additional District judge. The claimant- petitioners<\/p>\n
have filed the revision petitions claiming that the Collector was requested to<\/p>\n
refer the dispute to the District Judge for adjudication on merits but the said<\/p>\n
relief has not been given and the action of Land Acquisition Collector, in<\/p>\n
not referring the dispute for adjudication to District Judge, Bathinda, as they<\/p>\n
were not satisfied with the award, is illegal. Referring to the provisions of<\/p>\n
Section 18 of the Act, it was contended that after the receipt of application<\/p>\n
filed under Section 28-A of the Act, the Collector could have referred the<\/p>\n
dispute for adjudication to the Additional District Judge, Bathinda. It was
\n C.R. No. 5675 of 2007                                                     [8]<\/p>\n
contended that according to Section 28 (3) of the Act, any person who has<\/p>\n
not accepted the award under Section 28 (2) may by written application to<\/p>\n
the Collector, require that matter be referred to the Collector for the<\/p>\n
determination of the Court and the provisions of Sections 18 to 28 of the<\/p>\n
Act would be applicable. It was contended that neither the Additional<\/p>\n
District Judge nor the Collector has considered that the acquired land is<\/p>\n
commercial and there are many factories on both sides of the land acquired.<\/p>\n
The acquired land abuts on the main road of Rampura Talwandi and is<\/p>\n
within the Municipal limits of Maur Mandi. There is a rising trend in the<\/p>\n
prices of the land as such the petitioners are entitled for enhanced<\/p>\n
compensation as market value has not been properly assessed.<\/p>\n
             So far as the Board- petitioner in CR No. 6970 of 2006 and<\/p>\n
other connected revision petitions is concerned, the grievance of the Board<\/p>\n
is that after receipt of application under Section 28-A of the Act from the<\/p>\n
claimant- petitioners, the Collector while giving award dated July 4, 2006 in<\/p>\n
the light of the award passed by Additional District Judge, Bathinda, dated<\/p>\n
April 21, 2005, did not issue any notice to the petitioner- Board as the<\/p>\n
petitioner- Board has got an interest and that the petitioner- Board is also an<\/p>\n
aggrieved party against the award of the reference Court passed vide order<\/p>\n
dated April 21, 2005. It was argued that the said award of Reference Court<\/p>\n
has been challenged by the Board by filing Regular First appeals under<\/p>\n
Section 54 of the Act. Relying upon the judgment of Babua Ram and<\/p>\n
others Vs. State of U.P. and another, Supreme Court Judgment on Land<\/p>\n
Acquisition (1994-2004) page 168, it was contended that it would be
\n C.R. No. 5675 of 2007                                                    [9]<\/p>\n
obligatory for the Collector to keep the applications for re-determination of<\/p>\n
the compensation received by him within period of limitation, pending<\/p>\n
awaiting the decision of the High Court and that the compensation was<\/p>\n
required to be re-determined only on the basis of the final judgment and<\/p>\n
decree.\n<\/p>\n
             Senior counsel for the Board- Mr.H.S. Riar, contended that the<\/p>\n
Board- petitioner falls within the definition of interested person who falls<\/p>\n
under the definition of Section 28A (2) of the Act.     The Board has got a<\/p>\n
right, before award is made and to carry the same in appeal under Section 54<\/p>\n
of the Act. It was urged that the award of the Collector under Section 28A<\/p>\n
(2) of the Act is an award and per takes the same character was an offer and<\/p>\n
not a decision.\n<\/p>\n
             I have heard counsel for the petitioners in both set of petitions<\/p>\n
and considered their respective contentions. The claimant- petitioners had<\/p>\n
sought the re-determination of the amount of compensation under Section<\/p>\n
28A of the Act which enable a claimant for higher compensation on the<\/p>\n
basis of the award passed by the Reference Court for the amount of<\/p>\n
compensation in excess of the amount awarded by the Collector under<\/p>\n
Section 11 of the Act. When a claimant is interested in the other land<\/p>\n
covered by the same notification under Section 4(1) of the Act and has not<\/p>\n
sought a reference under Section 18 of the Act by moving an application to<\/p>\n
the Collector, he can, by written application to the Collector within three<\/p>\n
months from the date of the award of the Court make a request that amount<\/p>\n
of compensation payable to the other owners whose land form the subject
\n C.R. No. 5675 of 2007
\n[10]<\/p>\n
matter of the same notification under Section 4 of the Act, be re-determined<\/p>\n
on the basis of the amount of compensation awarded by the Court. The<\/p>\n
petitioners had approached the Land Acquisition Collector under the<\/p>\n
proviso of Section 28A of the Act within a period of three months and the<\/p>\n
Land Acquisition Collector vide order dated July 4, 2006 has re-fixed the<\/p>\n
amount of compensation in consonance with the award passed by the<\/p>\n
Reference Court under Section 18 of the Act. The objection of Section 28-<\/p>\n
A of the Act is the disbursement of payment of actual compensation to all<\/p>\n
the people having interests in the land acquired under the same notification.<\/p>\n
The beneficial interpretation of Section 28A of the Act is that all the<\/p>\n
claimants whose land is the subject matter of the same notification under<\/p>\n
Section 4 (1) of the Act should be entitled to get similar compensation after<\/p>\n
the disposal of the reference under Section 18 of the Act. The petitioners<\/p>\n
after having been granted the compensation seek a further reference for<\/p>\n
enhancement of the compensation which is not permissible under the<\/p>\n
provisions of the Act. They are not entitled to file first appeal for further<\/p>\n
enhancement. The bare reading of provisions of Section 28A of the Act<\/p>\n
indicates that it only enables the re-determination of the amount of<\/p>\n
compensation on the basis of the award of the Court under Section 18 of the<\/p>\n
Act.   It is nowhere the case of the petitioners that they had not accepted the<\/p>\n
award under Section 28 A (2) of the Act or that they had submitted any<\/p>\n
application to the Collector for determination of the matter by the Court. In<\/p>\n
view of said circumstances, there is no ground for interference in the order<\/p>\n
passed by the Land Acquisition Collector under Section 28 (1) of the Act.
\n C.R. No. 5675 of 2007
\n[11]<\/p>\n
The revision petitions of the claimant- petitioners are thus dismissed.<\/p>\n
             So far as the revision petitions filed by the Board against the<\/p>\n
order of Collector dated July 4,2006 awarding compensation on re-<\/p>\n
determination of the amount of compensation on the basis of the award of<\/p>\n
the Court are concerned, the grievance of the Board is two fold; first<\/p>\n
grievance is that no notice has been given to the Board before re-<\/p>\n
determining the amount of compensation as they were interested and<\/p>\n
aggrieved party and the second contention is that as the award passed by the<\/p>\n
Reference Court has been challenged by the Board by filing regular first<\/p>\n
appeals, the Collector should have deferred the decision of the application<\/p>\n
under Section 28A of the Act till the decision of regular first appeals as no<\/p>\n
notice was issued to the Board. The order passed by the Land Acquisition<\/p>\n
Collector dated July 4, 2006 is liable to be set aside. In support of said<\/p>\n
contention reliance has been placed on Babua Ram’s case (supra).<\/p>\n
             I have carefully considered the contentions of Mr.Riar and<\/p>\n
gone through the ratio of the judgment of Babua Ram’s case (supra). One<\/p>\n
of the questions which was involved before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in<\/p>\n
Babua Ram’s case (supra) was as to who could be the person “interested”<\/p>\n
and “aggrieved” in context to a claimant who had received compensation<\/p>\n
without protest. The claim of the State counsel in said case was that only<\/p>\n
that class of persons who would have received the compensation under<\/p>\n
protest could be the aggrieved persons to avail all the rights to claim re-<\/p>\n
determination of compensation and that Section 28A of the Act is<\/p>\n
transitional one and does not apply to future awards. State had claimed that
\n C.R. No. 5675 of 2007
\n[12]<\/p>\n
the Collector when re-determined the compensation under Section 28A (2)<\/p>\n
of the Act, the beneficial would be a person interested not having accepted<\/p>\n
the award. Only such person becomes entitled to seek reference under<\/p>\n
Section 28A (3) of the Act. So far as the petitioner Board is concerned, for<\/p>\n
the purpose of Section 28A of the Act, it is neither a “person interested” nor<\/p>\n
a “person aggrieved” by the award of the Collector, as simple reading of<\/p>\n
Section 28A of the Act indicates that the said provision is meant for only<\/p>\n
those persons whose land is covered by the same notification under Section<\/p>\n
4 (1) of the Act and who are aggrieved by the award of the Collector but<\/p>\n
they had not filed any application to the Collector under Section 18 of the<\/p>\n
Act for reference. The said persons can claim the re-determination of the<\/p>\n
amount of compensation when the Reference Court allows the other owners,<\/p>\n
similarly circumstanced, any amount of compensation in excess of the<\/p>\n
amount awarded by the Collector under Section 11 of the Act. The Board,<\/p>\n
therefore, does not fall within the ambit of “interested person” or “aggrieved<\/p>\n
person”. The word used “person interested” in Section 28A (2) of the Act<\/p>\n
would not in the present case include the Board, as the Board was not even<\/p>\n
impleaded as a party in Reference under Section 18 of the Act before the<\/p>\n
Reference Court.\n<\/p>\n
            I have considered the contention of learned counsel for the<\/p>\n
Board in the light of the ratio of the ruling of Babua Ram’s case (supra).<\/p>\n
As the Board was not a party before the Reference Court or before the<\/p>\n
Collector and it does not fall within the definition of an “interested person”
\n C.R. No. 5675 of 2007
\n[13]<\/p>\n
or “aggrieved person” under Section 28 (1) of the Act, it cannot derive the<\/p>\n
benefit of judgment of Babua Ram’s case (supra).\n<\/p>\n
            I have minutely gone through the judgment of Babua Ram’s<\/p>\n
case (supra) and appreciated the same in context to the law laid down by the<\/p>\n
Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mehboob Dawood Shaikh v. State of<\/p>\n
Maharashtra,<\/a> (2004) 2 SCC 362 and Government of Karnataka Vs. Smt.<\/p>\n
Govara, 2008 (1) Law Herald (SC) 483, wherein it has been held that the<\/p>\n
judgment of the Supreme Court should not be read as a statute and that a<\/p>\n
judgment should be understood in the light of facts of that case and no more<\/p>\n
should be read into it then what it actually says.   The judgment must be<\/p>\n
read as a whole and the observations from the judgment have to be<\/p>\n
considered in the light of the questions which were before the Court. In the<\/p>\n
same context, reference can be made to the State of Rajasthan v. Ganeshi<\/p>\n
Lal,<\/a> 2008 (1) Law Herald (SC) 275, wherein it was reiterated that reliance<\/p>\n
on a decision without looking into the factual background of the case is<\/p>\n
impermissible.\n<\/p>\n
            In view of the circumstances explained hereinbefore, the Board<\/p>\n
cannot be considered to be a “person interested” or “aggrieved” under<\/p>\n
Section 28(1) of the Act.\n<\/p>\n
            So far as the contention of Mr.Riar that the award of Reference<\/p>\n
Court has been carried in appeals as such it was obligatory for the Collector<\/p>\n
to keep the applications for re-determination of compensation received<\/p>\n
within limitation, pending awaiting the decision by the Appellate forum has
\n C.R. No. 5675 of 2007
\n[14]<\/p>\n
no force. He argued that the compensation should be re-determined only on<\/p>\n
the basis of the final judgment and decree.\n<\/p>\n
            I have carefully considered the said contention but I do not find<\/p>\n
any force in the same because in the circumstances of the present case when<\/p>\n
the application under Section 28A of the Act was filed by the claimant-<\/p>\n
petitioners on June 22, 2005, on that date the regular first appeals had not<\/p>\n
been filed by the Board or the State. The RFA No.4523\/2006 which is<\/p>\n
stated to be pending alongwith other regular first appeals, was filed in the<\/p>\n
year 2006 whereas the applications were field by the petitioners in June<\/p>\n
2005, much before the filing of the first appeals. It was not expected from<\/p>\n
the Collector exercising jurisdiction under Section 28A of the Act to wait<\/p>\n
for the decision of the appeals which had not even been filed by the time he<\/p>\n
decided the applications.\n<\/p>\n
            In view of this, the revision petitions filed by the Board are<\/p>\n
thus dismissed.    However, taking into consideration the import of the<\/p>\n
judgment in Babua Ram’s case (supra) that the compensation under<\/p>\n
Section 28A of the Act has to be re-determined on the basis of the final<\/p>\n
judgment and decree, a direction is issued that the award already passed by<\/p>\n
the Collector on July 4, 2006 would be subject to the final decision of the<\/p>\n
appeals against the Reference order dated April 21, 2005. It will be open to<\/p>\n
the Authority executing the Award under Section 28A of the Act to impose<\/p>\n
any condition upon the claimants- petitioners before disbursement of the<\/p>\n
enhanced compensation to secure the rights of the State.<\/p>\n
August 20, 2009                                   (M.M.S.BEDI)\n C.R. No. 5675 of 2007\n[15]\n\n\n\n\n sanjay                 JUDGE\n <\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Punjab-Haryana High Court C.R. No. 5675 Of 2007 vs Land Acquisition Collector And … on 20 August, 2009 C.R. No. 5675 of 2007 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Date of Decision: August 20, 2009 1. C.R. No. 5675 of 2007 Sadhu Singh …..Petitioner Vs. Land Acquisition Collector and another […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,28],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-44452","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-punjab-haryana-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nC.R. No. 5675 Of 2007 vs Land Acquisition Collector And ... on 20 August, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-r-no-5675-of-2007-vs-land-acquisition-collector-and-on-20-august-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"C.R. No. 5675 Of 2007 vs Land Acquisition Collector And ... on 20 August, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-r-no-5675-of-2007-vs-land-acquisition-collector-and-on-20-august-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2009-08-19T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-05-10T08:55:35+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"15 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/c-r-no-5675-of-2007-vs-land-acquisition-collector-and-on-20-august-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/c-r-no-5675-of-2007-vs-land-acquisition-collector-and-on-20-august-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"C.R. No. 5675 Of 2007 vs Land Acquisition Collector And … on 20 August, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-08-19T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-05-10T08:55:35+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/c-r-no-5675-of-2007-vs-land-acquisition-collector-and-on-20-august-2009\"},\"wordCount\":2545,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Punjab-Haryana High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/c-r-no-5675-of-2007-vs-land-acquisition-collector-and-on-20-august-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/c-r-no-5675-of-2007-vs-land-acquisition-collector-and-on-20-august-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/c-r-no-5675-of-2007-vs-land-acquisition-collector-and-on-20-august-2009\",\"name\":\"C.R. No. 5675 Of 2007 vs Land Acquisition Collector And ... on 20 August, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-08-19T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-05-10T08:55:35+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/c-r-no-5675-of-2007-vs-land-acquisition-collector-and-on-20-august-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/c-r-no-5675-of-2007-vs-land-acquisition-collector-and-on-20-august-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/c-r-no-5675-of-2007-vs-land-acquisition-collector-and-on-20-august-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"C.R. No. 5675 Of 2007 vs Land Acquisition Collector And … on 20 August, 2009\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"C.R. No. 5675 Of 2007 vs Land Acquisition Collector And ... on 20 August, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-r-no-5675-of-2007-vs-land-acquisition-collector-and-on-20-august-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"C.R. No. 5675 Of 2007 vs Land Acquisition Collector And ... on 20 August, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-r-no-5675-of-2007-vs-land-acquisition-collector-and-on-20-august-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-08-19T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-05-10T08:55:35+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"15 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-r-no-5675-of-2007-vs-land-acquisition-collector-and-on-20-august-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-r-no-5675-of-2007-vs-land-acquisition-collector-and-on-20-august-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"C.R. No. 5675 Of 2007 vs Land Acquisition Collector And … on 20 August, 2009","datePublished":"2009-08-19T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-05-10T08:55:35+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-r-no-5675-of-2007-vs-land-acquisition-collector-and-on-20-august-2009"},"wordCount":2545,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Punjab-Haryana High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-r-no-5675-of-2007-vs-land-acquisition-collector-and-on-20-august-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-r-no-5675-of-2007-vs-land-acquisition-collector-and-on-20-august-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-r-no-5675-of-2007-vs-land-acquisition-collector-and-on-20-august-2009","name":"C.R. No. 5675 Of 2007 vs Land Acquisition Collector And ... on 20 August, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-08-19T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-05-10T08:55:35+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-r-no-5675-of-2007-vs-land-acquisition-collector-and-on-20-august-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-r-no-5675-of-2007-vs-land-acquisition-collector-and-on-20-august-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-r-no-5675-of-2007-vs-land-acquisition-collector-and-on-20-august-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"C.R. No. 5675 Of 2007 vs Land Acquisition Collector And … on 20 August, 2009"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/44452","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=44452"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/44452\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=44452"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=44452"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=44452"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}