Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 11 (0.94 seconds)Vijay Kumar vs State Of Punjab on 14 December, 1973
RFA No.1901 of 2008 and other connected matters -13-
RFA No.1894 of 2008 (Parmeshwari Devi Vs. State of Punjab)
RFA No.1900 of 2008 (Vijay Kumar Vs. State of Punjab)
RFA No.1950 of 2008 (Dr. Rajinder K. Sharma Vs. State of Punjab)
Learned counsel for the parties are ad idem that same set of
evidence was relied upon in all these three appeals. They submit that the same
expert reports prepared by the same witness were relied upon by the land
owners for claiming the compensation for the trees including the fruit bearing
trees, which were standing on their land at the time of acquisition. This
statement made by learned counsel for the appellants-land owners has not been
controverted by learned counsel for the State as well. The number of trees
including fruit bearing trees in all these three cases are not in dispute. Similarly,
the age of the trees is also not in dispute. On these aspects, reports proved on
record by the expert witness of the appellants-land owners as well as the report
produced by the expert on behalf of the State also tally with each other.
Ravinder Sharma vs State Of Punjab on 17 October, 1994
RFA No.1901 of 2008 and other connected matters -13-
RFA No.1894 of 2008 (Parmeshwari Devi Vs. State of Punjab)
RFA No.1900 of 2008 (Vijay Kumar Vs. State of Punjab)
RFA No.1950 of 2008 (Dr. Rajinder K. Sharma Vs. State of Punjab)
Learned counsel for the parties are ad idem that same set of
evidence was relied upon in all these three appeals. They submit that the same
expert reports prepared by the same witness were relied upon by the land
owners for claiming the compensation for the trees including the fruit bearing
trees, which were standing on their land at the time of acquisition. This
statement made by learned counsel for the appellants-land owners has not been
controverted by learned counsel for the State as well. The number of trees
including fruit bearing trees in all these three cases are not in dispute. Similarly,
the age of the trees is also not in dispute. On these aspects, reports proved on
record by the expert witness of the appellants-land owners as well as the report
produced by the expert on behalf of the State also tally with each other.
Rattan Chand & Ors vs State Of Punjab And Anr on 20 May, 2014
RFA No.6924 of 2011 (Rattan Chand and others Vs. State of Punjab)
In this case, the only argument raised by learned counsel for the
appellants-land owners is based on the reports Ex.PW2/B and Ex.PW2/C,
which pertain to 1188 non-fruit bearing trees. This piece of evidence was duly
proved on record by the expert witness Balwant Singh PW2. It is very pertinent
to note here that as per the zimini order passed by the learned reference Court
on 16.04.2008, State of Punjab was proceeded ex parte, as none put appearance
despite service. This seems to be the reason that when this expert witness PW2
Balwant Singh appeared in the Court and was examined, he was not put to any
cross-examination, because the State had already been proceeded ex parte.
Thus, the valuation report for the non-fruit bearing trees prepared and duly
proved by this expert witness PW2 Balwant Singh has gone unrebutted on
record.
Dial Singh Son Of Gurdas Singh vs State Of Punjab on 15 January, 2014
Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State, however,
could not address any meaningful argument and submitted before
me that he was handicapped as his brief was not complete. He had
sought adjournment on this ground which was declined. It was
pointed out to him that the question in this case was only to see if
the evidence of Jasbir Singh AW1 had been rightly or wrongly
ignored by the Reference Court in view of the fact that the said
report has been relied upon by this Court in R.F.A. No.895 of 1995
and also Annexure A.7 in the case of Dial Singh Vs. State. The
State Counsel still prayed for adjournment, which was declined.
Parmeshwari Devi vs Punjab State Electricity Board on 13 April, 1993
RFA No.1901 of 2008 and other connected matters -13-
RFA No.1894 of 2008 (Parmeshwari Devi Vs. State of Punjab)
RFA No.1900 of 2008 (Vijay Kumar Vs. State of Punjab)
RFA No.1950 of 2008 (Dr. Rajinder K. Sharma Vs. State of Punjab)
Learned counsel for the parties are ad idem that same set of
evidence was relied upon in all these three appeals. They submit that the same
expert reports prepared by the same witness were relied upon by the land
owners for claiming the compensation for the trees including the fruit bearing
trees, which were standing on their land at the time of acquisition. This
statement made by learned counsel for the appellants-land owners has not been
controverted by learned counsel for the State as well. The number of trees
including fruit bearing trees in all these three cases are not in dispute. Similarly,
the age of the trees is also not in dispute. On these aspects, reports proved on
record by the expert witness of the appellants-land owners as well as the report
produced by the expert on behalf of the State also tally with each other.
Section 18 in The Land Acquisition Act, 1894 [Entire Act]
Onkar Singh vs State Of Punjab And Anr on 21 May, 2015
In view of the above, the expert report prepared by PW1 Jasbir
VISHNU
2016.02.23 11:52
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
High Court Chandigarh
RFA No.1901 of 2008 and other connected matters -14-
Singh as Ex.P2 in each of these three cases, deserves to be accepted as it is and
the same is accordingly accepted. Consequently, the land owners are entitled to
receive the compensation for the trees including the fruit bearing trees as per the
respective reports in the form of Ex.P2 in their cases produced by PW1 Jasbir
Singh. Accordingly, Smt. Parmeshwari Devi in land reference No.72 and RFA
No.1894 of 2008 is held entitled to receive the compensation, as assessed by
PW1 Jasbir Singh, for her trees including the fruit bearing trees standing on her
land at the time of acquisition at the rate of Rs.9,54,200/-. Vijay Kumar in land
reference No.74 and RFA No.1900 of 2008 is held entitled to receive the
compensation, as assessed by PW1 Jasbir Singh, for his trees including the fruit
bearing trees standing on his land at the time of acquisition at the rate of
Rs.6,80,500/-. Similarly, Dr. Rajinder K. Sharma in land reference No.77 and
RFA No.1950 of 2008 is held entitled to receive compensation, as assessed by
PW1 Jasbir Singh, for his trees including the fruit bearing trees at the rate of
Rs.84,89,800/- from the date of notification under Section 4 of the Act. Besides
this, the land owners shall also be entitled for all other statutory benefits
available to them under the relevant provisions of the Act.
RFA No.4855 of 2008 (Onkar Singh Vs. Punjab State and another)
In this case also number of trees including fruit bearing trees which
were standing in the land of the appellant-land owner at the time of its
acquisition, are not in dispute. Expert report by PW7 Jasbir Singh has been duly
proved on record in the form of Ex.PW7/B. In this case, no contrary expert
report has been produced by the State. A bare perusal of the impugned award
passed by the learned reference Court would show that the learned reference
Court fell in serious error of law, while ignoring this expert report which has
VISHNU
2016.02.23 11:52
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
High Court Chandigarh
RFA No.1901 of 2008 and other connected matters -15-
been duly proved on record. This witness was subjected to detailed cross-
examination, as in the abovesaid cases. He successfully stood the acid test, as
nothing adverse could be elicited from him. In this view of the matter, this
Court has found no reason to disbelieve the expert report Ex.PW7/B available
from pages 74 to 83 of the LCR. Accordingly, the land owner in this case is
held entitled to receive the compensation for his trees including the fruit bearing
trees as per the report Ex.PW7/B i.e. for an amount of Rs.6,41,300/-. It is so
said because the authenticity and genuineness of this report has gone unrebutted
on record.
Section 6 in The Land Acquisition Act, 1894 [Entire Act]
Ashok Kumar Sharma vs State Of Punjab And Ors. on 7 August, 1997
However, with the consent of learned counsel for the parties and
for the facility of reference, facts are being culled out from RFA Nos.1901 of
2008 (Ashok Kumar Sharma Vs. State of Punjab), RFA No.2279 of 2011 (Smt.
Surinder Kaur and State of Punjab), RFA No.1894 of 2008 (Parmeshwari Devi
Vs. State of Punjab), RFA No.1900 of 2008 (Vijay Kumar Vs. State of Punjab),
RFA No.1950 of 2008 (Dr. Rajinder K. Sharma Vs. State of Punjab) & RFA
No.6924 of 2010 (Rattan Chand and others Vs. State of Punjab), as these cases
have different facts regarding superstructure.