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 0, Cited by 3]

Punjab-Haryana High Court

3 Ra-Cw-505-2013 vs Land Acquisition Tribunal And Ors on 11 July, 2014

                  3            RA-CW-505-2013
                               IN CWP-10622-2012

                               IMPROVEMENT TRUST, GURDASPUR
                               V/S
                               LAND ACQUISITION TRIBUNAL AND ORS.

                  Present:     Mr. Neeraj Kumar Jain, Senior Advocate with
                               Mr. Sandeep Khunger, Advocate
                               for the applicant-petitioner.

                               ******

The application is for review of the order passed by this Court on 25.07.2012 inter-alia for the reason that a wrong factual statement was made by counsel for the petitioner in respect of the distance of the land acquired, from the land subject matter of sale instances produced by the petitioner. It is also argued that though the Tribunal has relied upon sale instances (Ex.P9 and Ex.P41) which this Court has taken to be part of the acquired land but as a matter of fact they were not part of the acquired land, though the land is situated within the revenue area of Shahzada Nangal.

Though learned counsel for the petitioner fairly states that though land, subject matter of one of the sale deed is of more than 10 acres but the land of other sale deeds are located at a distance which is less than 10 acres.

We have heard learned counsel for the applicant and find no ground is made out to review the order. There was a categorical statement made before this Court that the distance of land acquired from the land subject matter of the sale deeds relied upon by the petitioner is more than 10 acres. There is no counter indication that no such statement was made. The review application has been filed after change of counsel with no assertion that no such statement was made. Therefore, the petitioner cannot be permitted to dispute a statement made by its counsel on facts.

Diwakar Gulati

2014.07.16 15:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

However, we find that slight inadvertent mistake in the last paragraph of the order requires to be corrected. The words "Therefore, the market value has been rightly assessed on the basis of sale deed Ex.P-9 and Ex.P-41, which are the part of the acquired land" is ordered to be substituted to read as "Therefore, the market value has been rightly assessed on the basis of sale deed Ex.P-9 and Ex.P-41, which are the part of the revenue area of Shahzada Nangal, which is near the acquired land and falls within the limits of Municipal Committee, Gurdaspur."

With the modification of the mistake in the order, the application is disposed of.




                                                        (HEMANT GUPTA)
                                                            JUDGE



                  JULY 11, 2014                     (RAJIV NARAIN RAINA)
                  'D. Gulati'                                JUDGE




Diwakar Gulati
2014.07.16 15:11
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document