Punjab-Haryana High Court
Union Of India And Others vs Dina Nath And Others on 16 March, 2011
Author: Rajesh Bindal
Bench: Rajesh Bindal
RFA No. 1547 of 1989 (1)
In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh
RFA No. 1547 of 1989 (O&M)
Date of decision : 16.3.2011
Union of India and others ... Appellants
vs
Dina Nath and others ..... Respondents
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: None. Rajesh Bindal J.
Union of India is in appeal appeal before this Court against the award passed by learned Additional District Judge, Gurdaspur for reduction in the amount of compensation awarded to the respondent on account of acquisition of super structure.
Briefly, the facts are that super structure in question situated in the revenue estate of Village Athotarwan, Tehsil Pathankot, District Gurdaspur was acquired vide notification dated 2.12.1977, which was published on 23.12.1977, 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 5.7.1978 and published on 14.7.1978. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short, `the Collector') gave award of ` 55,971.05 pertaining to super structure on 30.5.1981. The respondent 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 ` 59,467/-. It is this award which is impugned by the Union of India in the present appeal.
The respondent in the present case claimed a sum of ` 5,00,000/- on account of acquisition of super structure and additional sum of ` 10,000/- was claimed for shifting. However, only a sum of ` 55,971.05 was granted by the Collector. The dispute in the present case is only for a RFA No. 1547 of 1989 (2) small amount of ` 12,500/-. 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 33 years back, prima-facie, I do not find any reason to interfere therein at this stage. However, still as learned counsel for the appellants is not available, the appeal is dismissed in default.
16.3.2011 (Rajesh Bindal) vs. Judge