Punjab-Haryana High Court
Collector Land Acquisition And Another vs Khem Chand on 29 July, 2010
Author: Rajesh Bindal
Bench: Rajesh Bindal
In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh
RFA No. 1799 of 1990 and
Cross-Objection No. 87/CI of 1990 (O&M)
Collector Land Acquisition and another ... Appellants
vs
Khem Chand ..... Respondent
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal
Present: Mr. Ashish Gupta, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana.
None for the cross-objector/respondent.
Rajesh Bindal J.
The State of Haryana is in appeal appeal before this Court against the award passed by learned court below seeking reduction in the amount of compensation awarded by the learned court below for the tubewell existing on the acquired land whereas by filing the cross-objections the landowner is seeking further enhancement of compensation.
Briefly, the facts are that State of Haryana vide notification dated 28.10.1976 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, `the Act') acquired the land along with tubewell/ superstructures existing thereon. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short, `the Collector') assessed the market value of the tubewell @ ` 7,190/-. Dissatisfied with the award of the Collector, the landowner filed objections which were referred to the learned Court below for consideration, who keeping in view the material placed on record by the parties, determined the market value of the tubewell @ ` 10,784.30 paise. It is this award which is impugned by both the parties.
A perusal of the paper-book shows that the claim of the appellant in the present appeal is quite marginal and the acquisition having taken place more than 34 years back, I do not find any reason to interfere at this stage.
Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.
The assessment for the tubewell given by the respondent himself was ` 9,346/- but court below has granted compensation for the tubewell @ ` 10,784.30 paise keeping in view the prices of pipes and other material. Since no one has appeared for the cross-objector/respondent in support of the claim made in the cross-objections, accordingly the same are dismissed in default.
29.7.2010 ( Rajesh Bindal) vs. Judge