Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 2, Cited by 3]

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Sohan Lal @ Sannu And Others vs The State Of Haryana And Another on 10 August, 2010

Author: Rajesh Bindal

Bench: Rajesh Bindal

              In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh

                                              R. F. A No. 3014 of 1989 (O&M)


Sohan Lal @ Sannu and others                                 ..... Appellants

                                         vs
The State of Haryana and another                             ..... Respondents
Coram:       Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal


Present:     None for the appellants.

Mr. Ashish Gupta, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana.

Rajesh Bindal J.

The landowners are in appeal before this court against the order of the learned court below seeking enhancement of compensation for the acquired land.

Briefly, the facts of the case are that the State of Haryana vide notification dated 10.11.1982 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 (for short, "the Act"), acquired the land situated in revenue estate of Village Fatehpur Chandela, District Faridabad for development and utilisation thereof as residential and commercial area in Sector 21-C, Urban Estate Faridabad. The Land Acquisition Collector assessed the market value of the acquired land @ ` 70,000/- per acre. On reference under Section 18 of the Act, the learned court below, on the basis of earlier judgment dated 8.9.1988, Ex.P-1, determined the market value of the acquired land @ ` 22/- per square yard.

Learned State counsel submitted that the claim made in the present appeal is squarely covered by judgment of this court in RFA No. 1758 of 1988 Parmal vs State of Haryana, decided on 25.5.2005, whereby the award of the Reference Court was upheld. The amount of compensation assessed in the present case is also in the same terms, prima facie, the claim made in the appeal does not survive. However, as no one has appeared for the appellants, the present appeal is dismissed in default.





10.8.2010                                                (Rajesh Bindal)
vs.                                                           Judge