Surya Kant J. (Oral) Vs. Jatinder Kumar Alias Tajinder Lal .....Petitioner - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/1125109
CourtPunjab and Haryana High Court
Decided OnJan-16-2014
AppellantSurya Kant J. (Oral)
RespondentJatinder Kumar Alias Tajinder Lal .....Petitioner
Excerpt:
in the high court of punjab & haryana at chandigarh civil writ petition no.661 of 2014 date of decision : january 16, 2014 jatinder kumar alias tajinder lal .....petitioner versus state of punjab and others .....respondents coram : hon'ble mr.justice surya kant. hon'ble mr.justice amol rattan singh. present : mr.sandeep arora, advocate, for the petitioner. mr.p.s.bajwa, additional ag, for respondent no.1. mr.g.s.attariwala, advocate for respondent nos.2 to 4. --- 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?. --- surya kant, j. (oral) notice of motion. on our asking, mr.p.s.bajwa, learned additional advocate general, punjab, accepts notice on behalf of respondent no.1-state and mr.g.s.attariwala, advocate, accepts notice on behalf of respondent nos.2 to 4. let two copies each of the writ petition be supplied to the learned state counsel and learned counsel for respondent nos.2 to 4 during the cours.of day failing which this order shall be automatically recalled and the writ petition shall be deemed to have been dismissed for non-prosecution. in view of the nature of order which we propose to pass, there is no necessity to seek any counter-reply from the respondents at this stage. the petitioner seeks modification of the award dated 13.10.2012 (annexure p-1) passed by the tribunal, kumar mohinder 2014.02.10 15:24 i attest to the accuracy of this order chandigarh cwp no.661 of 2014 [2].improvement trust, jalandhar, granting compensation @ rs.12,000 to rs.15,000/- per marla alongwith statutory benefits in respect of his land acquired for '94.5 acres development scheme' of improvement trust, jalandhar. during the cours.of hearing learned counsel for the parties are ad-idem that against the same award, a bunch of writ petitions including cwp no.3980 of 2013 (prem kumar versus tribunal improvement trust, jalandhar and others.have been allowed in part by this court vide order dated 31.10.2013, the operative part whereof reads as under:- “........39. in view of our discussion above, the writ petitions filed by the claimants are partly allowed. the award of the tribunal dated 13.10.2012 is modified to the extent that compensation for the land abutting the bye-pass (240' x 2265') is assessed @ rs.16,080/- per marla and of the remaining land @ rs.13,400/- per marla with all statutory benefits under sections 23 & 28 of the land acquisition act on the difference of the market value of acquired land over and above the compensation awarded by the tribunal.......”.the instant writ petition is accordingly allowed in part in the above-reproduced terms.dasti. [surya kant].judge january 16, 2014 [amol rattan singh].mohinder judge kumar mohinder 2014.02.10 15:24 i attest to the accuracy of this order chandigarh
Judgment:

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.661 of 2014 Date of Decision : January 16, 2014 Jatinder Kumar alias Tajinder Lal .....Petitioner versus State of Punjab and others .....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT.

HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AMOL RATTAN SINGH.

Present : Mr.Sandeep Arora, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Mr.P.S.Bajwa, Additional AG, for respondent no.1.

Mr.G.S.Attariwala, Advocate for respondent Nos.2 to 4.

--- 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?.

--- Surya Kant, J.

(Oral) Notice of motion.

On our asking, Mr.P.S.Bajwa, learned Additional Advocate General, Punjab, accepts notice on behalf of respondent No.1-State and Mr.G.S.Attariwala, Advocate, accepts notice on behalf of respondent Nos.2 to 4.

Let two copies each of the writ petition be supplied to the learned State Counsel and learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 to 4 during the couRs.of day failing which this order shall be automatically recalled and the writ petition shall be deemed to have been dismissed for non-prosecution.

In view of the nature of order which we propose to pass, there is no necessity to seek any counter-reply from the respondents at this stage.

The petitioner seeks modification of the Award dated 13.10.2012 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Tribunal, Kumar Mohinder 2014.02.10 15:24 I attest to the accuracy of this order Chandigarh CWP No.661 of 2014 [2].Improvement Trust, Jalandhar, granting compensation @ Rs.12,000 to Rs.15,000/- per marla alongwith statutory benefits in respect of his land acquired for '94.5 Acres Development Scheme' of Improvement Trust, Jalandhar.

During the couRs.of hearing learned counsel for the parties are ad-idem that against the same Award, a bunch of writ petitions including CWP No.3980 of 2013 (Prem Kumar versus Tribunal Improvement Trust, Jalandhar and otheRs.have been allowed in part by this Court vide order dated 31.10.2013, the operative part whereof reads as under:- “........39.

In view of our discussion above, the writ petitions filed by the claimants are partly allowed.

The award of the Tribunal dated 13.10.2012 is modified to the extent that compensation for the land abutting the bye-pass (240' x 2265') is assessed @ Rs.16,080/- per marla and of the remaining land @ Rs.13,400/- per marla with all statutory benefits under Sections 23 & 28 of the Land Acquisition Act on the difference of the market value of acquired land over and above the compensation awarded by the Tribunal.......”

.The instant writ petition is accordingly allowed in part in the above-reproduced terMs.Dasti.

[SURYA KANT].JUDGE January 16, 2014 [AMOL RATTAN SINGH].Mohinder JUDGE Kumar Mohinder 2014.02.10 15:24 I attest to the accuracy of this order Chandigarh