Punjab-Haryana High Court
Uoi vs Sawaran Singh And Anr on 15 September, 2015
Author: Rajesh Bindal
Bench: Rajesh Bindal
VARINDER SINGH
2015.09.21 10:33
RFA No. 2781 of 2006 (1) I attest to the accuracy and integrity
of this document
Punjab & Haryana High Court at
Chandigarh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
RFA No. 2781 of 2006 (O&M)
LAC No. 632 of 11.9.1997
Date of decision : 15.9.2015
Union of India .. Appellant
versus
Sawaran Singh and another .. Respondents
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal
Present: Mr. Deepak Sharma, Advocate, for the appellant.
Rajesh Bindal, J.
Chandigarh Administration is in appeal seeking reduction of compensation awarded to the landowners by the learned court below for the acquired land.
Briefly, the facts of the case are that vide notification dated 12.9.1991, issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, `the Act'), Chandigarh Administration sought to acquire land in village Mauli Jagran, U. T. Chandigarh, for construction of rehabilitation colony. The same was followed by notification dated 24.1.1992, issued under Section 6 of the Act. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short, `the Collector'), vide award dated 17.2.1992, assessed the market value of the acquired land @ ` 2,00,000/- per acre. Dissatisfied with the award of the Collector, the land owners filed objections. On reference, the learned court below assessed the market value of the acquired land @ ` 4,93,680/- per acre.
Learned counsel for the appellant did not dispute the fact that after the remand of other cases arising out of the same acquisition vide order dated 6.8.2009 passed in RFA No. 1298 of 2003 Union of India vs Labh Singh and others, the learned reference Court has awarded compensation @ ` 192/- per square yard and against that award, the Chandigarh VARINDER SINGH 2015.09.21 10:33 RFA No. 2781 of 2006 (2) I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab & Haryana High Court at Chandigarh Administration has not filed any appeal. Hence, the prayer made in the present appeal has been rendered infructuous.
Ordered accordingly.
15.9.2015 (Rajesh Bindal) vs Judge