Punjab-Haryana High Court
The State Of Punjab And Another vs Joginder Singh on 5 November, 2008
Author: Rajesh Bindal
Bench: Rajesh Bindal
R.F.A. No. 1360 of 1990 [Page numbers]
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
R.F.A. No. 1360 of 1990
Date of decision: 5.11.2008
The State of Punjab and another
.. Appellants
v.
Joginder Singh
.. Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL
Present: Mr. O.P. Dabla, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab
for the appellants.
Mr. Pritam Saini, Advocate for the respondent.
Rajesh Bindal J.
The State is in appeal against the award of the learned court below seeking reduction of compensation for the acquired land awarded to the respondent.
Briefly, the facts are that vide notification dated 22.5.1981, issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, `the Act'), State of Punjab acquired land situated in village Chaura for construction of Patiala Bye pass. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short, `the Collector') vide his award dated 22.9.1986, determined the market value at Rs. 1,00,000/- per acre. The learned Additional District Judge, on reference under Section 18 of the Act, assessed the market value of the acquired land at Rs. 1,16,000/- per acre.
Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the learned court below has gone wrong in assessing the market value of the land at Rs. 1,16,000/- per acre and granting benefits under Section 23(1-A) of the Act and award to that extent deserves to be set aside.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I do not find merit in any of the submissions made. A perusal of the impugned award shows that the learned court below had relied upon other award (Ex. P5) pertaining to the same village and on that basis, the value of the land was assessed. It has not been pointed out as to whether award (Ex. P5), as was relied upon by the learned court below, was further appealed against by the State or not. Keeping that fact in view, I do not find any reason to interfere in the impugned award as far as determination of value of the acquired land is concerned. It has further not been pointed out as to what was the fate of other six references which were disposed of by the learned R.F.A. No. 1360 of 1990 [Page numbers] court below by a common award along with the case of the respondent.
As far as grant of benefit under Section 23(1-A) of the Act is concerned, a perusal of the impugned award shows that the land was acquired vide notification dated 22.5.1981 issued under Section 4 of the Act. However, the award of the Collector was pronounced on 22.9.1986 and that of the learned court below on 22.1.1989. I do not find that any illegality has been committed by the learned court below in granting benefit under Section 23(1-A) of the Act.
Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.
(Rajesh Bindal) Judge 5.11.2008 mk