The State of Haryana (Through the Land Acquisition Collector) Pw Vs. Jatinder Singh and Narender Singh Sons of Jagjeet Singh Son of - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/1063897
CourtPunjab and Haryana High Court
Decided OnMay-21-2013
AppellantThe State of Haryana (Through the Land Acquisition Collector) Pw
RespondentJatinder Singh and Narender Singh Sons of Jagjeet Singh Son of
Excerpt:
in the high court of punjab and haryana at chandigarh rfa no.2385 of 1992 (o&m) date of decision:21. 05.2013 the state of haryana (through the land acquisition collector) pw (ib) haryana model town ambala city...appellant versus jatinder singh and narender singh sons of jagjeet singh son of sunder singh, residents of mohalla jattan, ambala city....respondents coram: hon’ble mr.justice k. kannan ---- present: mr.ashish gupta, aag, haryana, for the appellant. mr.s.s.dinarpur, advocate, for the respondents. ---- k.kannan, j. the appeal is by the state against the order passed by the reference court on an application for amendment of the award passed under the land acquisition act. the land acquisition collector, in this case, had passed an award on 28.10.1982 on a reference to the civil court for enhancement of compensation. the civil court had passed the award on 23.10.1984, while the reference court had merely provided for the benefits relating to solatium and interest under the pre-amended land acquisition act of 1984. the court, therefore, modified the award on an application rfa no.2385 of 1992 (o&m) -2- filed 6 years after the award by providing for additional benefits under section 23(1-a).23(2) and 28 of the land acquisition act. the introduction of the amendment bill in the lok sabha was made on 30.04.1982 and consequently when the award was passed subsequent to the introduction of the bill, in terms of the interpretation of section 30 of the land acquisition amendment act by the supreme court in case in k.s.paripoornam versus state of kerala-1994(5) scc 593.the landowner was entitled to the benefits of the amended provisions of the act under section 23(1-a) for additional compensation, under section 23(2) for the increased percentage of solatium and under section 28 for interest for the relevant period. the reference court was justified in making the amendment and it is in conformity with the law laid down by the supreme court and there is no scope for interference and the appeal by the state is dismissed. (k.kannan) judge 21 05.2013 sanjeev
Judgment:

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RFA No.2385 of 1992 (O&M) Date of decision:

21. 05.2013 The State of Haryana (through the Land Acquisition Collector) PW (IB) Haryana Model Town Ambala City...Appellant versus Jatinder Singh and Narender Singh sons of Jagjeet Singh son of Sunder Singh, residents of Mohalla Jattan, Ambala City....Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE Mr.JUSTICE K.

KANNAN ---- Present: Mr.Ashish Gupta, AAG, Haryana, for the appellant.

Mr.S.S.Dinarpur, Advocate, for the respondents.

---- K.Kannan, J.

The appeal is by the State against the order passed by the Reference Court on an application for amendment of the award passed under the Land Acquisition Act.

The Land Acquisition Collector, in this case, had passed an award on 28.10.1982 on a reference to the Civil Court for enhancement of compensation.

The Civil Court had passed the award on 23.10.1984, while the Reference Court had merely provided for the benefits relating to solatium and interest under the pre-amended Land Acquisition Act of 1984.

The Court, therefore, modified the award on an application RFA No.2385 of 1992 (O&M) -2- filed 6 years after the award by providing for additional benefits under Section 23(1-A).23(2) and 28 of the Land Acquisition Act.

The introduction of the Amendment Bill in the Lok Sabha was made on 30.04.1982 and consequently when the award was passed subsequent to the introduction of the Bill, in terms of the interpretation of Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Amendment Act by the Supreme Court in case in K.S.Paripoornam Versus State of Kerala-1994(5) SCC 593.the landowner was entitled to the benefits of the amended provisions of the Act under Section 23(1-A) for additional compensation, under Section 23(2) for the increased percentage of solatium and under Section 28 for interest for the relevant period.

The Reference Court was justified in making the amendment and it is in conformity with the law laid down by the Supreme Court and there is no scope for interference and the appeal by the State is dismissed.

(K.KANNAN) JUDGE 21 05.2013 sanjeev