High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh
Case Law Search
Charanjit Singh & Anr v. The State of Haryana & Ors - RFA-1932-1988  RD-P&H 1051 (21 February 2006)
DATE OF DECISION:March 1, 2006
Charanjit Singh and another
The State of Haryana and others
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINEY MITTAL
PRESENT: S/Shri Anil. Kshetarpal, Ranjit Saini, Pritam Saini, U.S.Sahni, C.B.Goel and Ram Chand Advocates for The appellants.
Shri Hawa Singh Hooda, Advocate General, Haryana with Shri D.S.Nalwa, DAG, Haryana.
Ms.Daya Chaudhary, Assistant Solicitor General of India For UOI.
Shri Amit Rawal, Advocate for Shri G.S.Kaura, Advocate For Indian Oil Corporation.
This judgment shall dispose of a bunch of appeals since all the appeals arise out of same acquisition proceedings wherein the land in question had been acquired through notification dated September 12/19,1983 and another notification dated March 29,1985 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, `the Act') in village Bohali, Tehsil Panipat and District Karnal.
After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, I find that an appeal being RFA No.2612 of 1991 (Balkar Singh and another v. State of Haryana and others) has been decided by this Court
vide judgment dated November 14,2003. A copy of the aforesaid judgment has been placed on record as Annexure A.1 through Civil Misc. Application No.4828-CI of 2005 in RFA No.1932 of 1988.
I have gone through the judgment dated November 14,2003 and find that the aforesaid judgment pertains to the assessment of the acquired land through the aforesaid notifications dated September 12/19,1983 and March 29,1985.
However, some of the learned counsel for the claimants have claimed that they were entitled to further enhancement than awarded in Balkar Singh's case (supra). It has been argued that in fact 1/3rd
cut which had been applied by the learned Judge while disposing of Balkar Singh's case (supra) was erroneous and, therefore, the claimants were entitled to the assessment on the basis of sale instances. It has also been argued by the learned counsel for the claimants that the classification of the land in categories of Nehri,Chahi, Barani and Banjar was also erroneous. It has further been argued by some of the learned counsel that the learned Judge has given the same compensation for the land acquired through notification dated March 29,1985, which had been given for the land acquired through notification dated September 12/19,1983. It has been argued by the learned counsel that for the acquisition of the year 1985, the claimants were entitled to further enhancement.
I have duly considered the aforesaid arguments of the learned counsel but find myself unable to agree with the same.
While making the assessment of compensation in the case of Balkar Singh's case (supra) the entire evidence available on the record was duly taken into consideration by the learned Judge. In these circumstances, there is no justification to take a different view than taken by the learned Judge in Balkar Singh's case (supra).
At this stage, I am also informed that a review application filed by the claimants in the aforesaid Balkar Singh's case (supra) has also been dismissed by the learned Judge.
Keeping in view the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, the present appeals are disposed of in the same terms as in RFA No.2612 of 1991 (Balkar Singh and another v. State of Haryana and others), decided on November 14,2003.
March 01, 2006 (Viney Mittal)
RFA No. of (O&M)
Same order as in RFA No.1932 of 1988 (Charanjit Singh and another v. The State of Haryana and others), decided on March 1, 2006.
March 01, 2006 (Viney Mittal)
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.