High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Vs. State of Haryana and ors. . . . - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/1055431
CourtPunjab and Haryana High Court
Decided OnAug-01-2013
AppellantHigh Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh
RespondentState of Haryana and ors. . . .
Excerpt:
high court of punjab and haryana at chandigarh **** cwp no.760 of 2013 (o&m) date of decision:01. 08.2013 **** mohinder singh . . petitioner versus state of haryana & ors.. . respondents **** coram : hon’ble mr.justice surya surya kant hon’ble mr.justice surinder gupta **** 1. whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?.”2. to be referred to the reporters or not?.”3. whether the judgment should be reported in the digest?. **** present: mr.nd achint, advocate for the petitioner ms.palika monga, dag haryana mr.dheeraj chawla, advocate for respondent no.2 **** surya kant j. (oral) (1).the question that arises for consideration in this case is whether or not the petitioner is entitled to payment of additional compensation for the fruit-bearing trees standing on the land measuring 3 kanal situated within the revenue estate of village patli hazipur, tehsil farrukhnagar, district gurgaon which has been acquired by the respondents vide award dated 29.01.2009 (annexure p7).(2).while the petitioner relies upon the revenue record, a report submitted by the district horticulture officer and his own representations sent to the authorities to substantiate his claim that there were 90 fruit-bearing trees, the respondents deny such claim as, according to them, no such tree was found standing at the time of acquisition of the petitioner’s land. vishal v 2013.08.13 14:16 i attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document cwp no.760 of 2013 -2- (3).the documents relied upon by the petitioner give some credence to his plea but (i) how many such trees were there?. (ii) whether they were fruit-bearing trees?. (iii) what was the estimated market value of those trees?. etc.– are some of the factual issues which can be effectively determined on consideration of evidence of both the parties. (4).we, therefore, dispose of this writ petition with a direction to the land acquisition collector to make reference of the petitioner’s claim for additional compensation to the district judge, gurgaon within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order and on receipt of such reference, the district judge, gurgaon shall determine the above-mentioned questions in accordance with law and principle of natural justice. (5).ordered accordingly. dasti. (surya kant) kant) judge 01.08. 01.08.2013 (surinder gupta) gupta) vishal shonkar judge vishal v 2013.08.13 14:16 i attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
Judgment:

HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** CWP No.760 of 2013 (O&M) Date of Decision:

01. 08.2013 **** Mohinder Singh .

.

Petitioner versus State of Haryana & ORS..

.

Respondents **** CORAM : HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA SURYA KANT HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE SURINDER GUPTA **** 1.

Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?.”

2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?.”

3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?.

**** Present: Mr.ND Achint, Advocate for the petitioner Ms.Palika Monga, DAG Haryana Mr.Dheeraj Chawla, Advocate for respondent No.2 **** SURYA KANT J.

(ORAL) (1).The question that arises for consideration in this case is whether or not the petitioner is entitled to payment of additional compensation for the fruit-bearing trees standing on the land measuring 3 kanal situated within the revenue estate of Village Patli Hazipur, Tehsil Farrukhnagar, District Gurgaon which has been acquired by the respondents vide award dated 29.01.2009 (Annexure P7).(2).While the petitioner relies upon the revenue record, a report submitted by the District Horticulture Officer and his own representations sent to the authorities to substantiate his claim that there were 90 fruit-bearing trees, the respondents deny such claim as, according to them, no such tree was found standing at the time of acquisition of the petitioner’s land.

Vishal V 2013.08.13 14:16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No.760 of 2013 -2- (3).The documents relied upon by the petitioner give some credence to his plea but (i) how many such trees were there?.

(ii) whether they were fruit-bearing trees?.

(iii) what was the estimated market value of those trees?.

etc.– are some of the factual issues which can be effectively determined on consideration of evidence of both the parties.

(4).We, therefore, dispose of this writ petition with a direction to the Land Acquisition Collector to make reference of the petitioner’s claim for additional compensation to the District Judge, Gurgaon within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order and on receipt of such reference, the District Judge, Gurgaon shall determine the above-mentioned questions in accordance with law and principle of natural justice.

(5).Ordered accordingly.

Dasti.

(Surya Kant) Kant) Judge 01.08.

01.08.2013 (Surinder Gupta) Gupta) vishal shonkar Judge Vishal V 2013.08.13 14:16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document