Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Purshotam Dass Goel vs State Of Haryana And Others on 8 September, 2008

Author: Rajesh Bindal

Bench: Rajesh Bindal

R. F. A No. 718 of 1987                                          1

              In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh


                                               Date of decision : 08.9.2008

1.      R. F. A No. 718 of 1987 (O&M)

        Purshotam Dass Goel                                ..... Appellant
                                        vs
        State of Haryana and others                        ..... Respondents

1. R. F. A No. 1164 of 1987 (O&M) State of Haryana ..... Appellant vs Purshotam Dass Goel ..... Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: Mr. C. B. Goel, Advocate, for the landowner.

Mr. Rajiv Kawatra, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Haryana.

Rajesh Bindal J.

This order will dispose of two Regular First Appeal Nos. 718 and 1164 of 1987 as the same are arising out of award dated 1.12.1986 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Kurukshetra.

Claimant Purshotam Dass Goel has filed the appeal for enhancement of compensation whereas the State of Haryana has filed the appeal for reduction thereof.

Briefly, the facts are that vide Notification dated 25.6.1984, under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, the State of Haryana acquired 124 kanals 17 marlas of land for setting up 132 K. V. Sub-Station at Kaul at the expense of Haryana State Electricity Board. The award was announced by the Collector on 17.4.1985. The learned Additional District Judge vide judgment dated 1.12.1986, determined the compensation at the rate of Rs. 45,000/- per acre.

A perusal of the award of the learned court below shows that while recording finding on issue no.1 for determination of fair market value of the acquired land, reliance was placed upon the award Ex. P-18 rendered by the Reference court in another case on 26.11.1985 with regard to the same acquisition vide the same notification.

Learned counsel for the parties did not show anything that further appeal was preferred by any of the parties against the award as relied upon by the court below in the present case, meaning thereby that the same attained finality. As there is no independent material on record in the present case no case for further increase of compensation can be made out. As far as the appeal of the State is concerned, once the State has accepted the main award which has been relied upon in the present case, no case for reduction of the compensation already granted to the landowners is made out either.

In view of the above, both the appeals are dismissed.

08.9.2008                                               ( Rajesh Bindal)
vs.                                                          Judge