Semantic Analysis by spaCy
Union of India (Uoi) Vs. Arjan Singh
Decided On : May-21-1990
Court : Punjab and Haryana
Notice (8): Undefined index: topics [APP/View/Case/meta.ctp, line 36]Code Context$shops2 = $shops['topics'];$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/meta.ctp' $dataForView = array( 'title_for_layout' => 'Union of India (Uoi) Vs. Arjan Singh Semantic Analysis', 'shops' => array( 'LAW' => array( (int) 0 => 'Section 4', (int) 1 => 'Section 6', (int) 2 => 'Section 18 of the Act', (int) 3 => 'Section 23(1A', (int) 4 => 'Act 68 of 1984', (int) 5 => 'the Amending Act', (int) 6 => 'Section 23', (int) 7 => 'the Amending Act', (int) 8 => 'Section 4 of the', (int) 9 => 'Section 6', (int) 10 => 'Section 18 of the Act', (int) 11 => 'Section 4', (int) 12 => 'Section 23(1A', (int) 13 => 'Section 23(1A', (int) 14 => 'the Amending Act', (int) 15 => 'Section 54', (int) 16 => 'Section 23(1-A', (int) 17 => 'the Amending Act', (int) 18 => 'Section 23', (int) 19 => 'the Amending Act', (int) 20 => 'Section 23' ), 'PERSON' => array( (int) 0 => 'G.R. Majithia', (int) 1 => 'L. P. A. No', (int) 2 => 'Gobindpura', (int) 3 => 'Filip Tiago De Gama' ), 'DATE' => array( (int) 0 => '1988', (int) 1 => '1019 to 1086 of 1988', (int) 2 => '1088 of 1988', (int) 3 => '1089 of 1988', (int) 4 => '1091', (int) 5 => '1988', (int) 6 => 'May 10, 1970', (int) 7 => 'June 8, 1979', (int) 8 => '1894', (int) 9 => 'October 26, 1979', (int) 10 => 'March 31, 1981', (int) 11 => 'August 11, 1986', (int) 12 => 'one year', (int) 13 => 'May 1, 1987', (int) 14 => '1990', (int) 15 => 'October 26, 1967', (int) 16 => 'February 23,1968', (int) 17 => 'March 5, 1969', (int) 18 => 'May 28, 1985', (int) 19 => 'the first year', (int) 20 => 'the subsequent years', (int) 21 => '1076', (int) 22 => '1054', (int) 23 => '1080', (int) 24 => '1052, 1080, 1083, 1098', (int) 25 => '1042', (int) 26 => '1021', (int) 27 => '1041', (int) 28 => '1035', (int) 29 => '1050', (int) 30 => '1062', (int) 31 => '1988', (int) 32 => '1436, 1446, 1442,', (int) 33 => '1431', (int) 34 => '1435', (int) 35 => '1443', (int) 36 => '1438', (int) 37 => '1441', (int) 38 => '1439', (int) 39 => '1447', (int) 40 => '1443', (int) 41 => '1412', (int) 42 => '1440', (int) 43 => '1431', (int) 44 => '1444', (int) 45 => '1437', (int) 46 => '1448', (int) 47 => '1445 of 1988', (int) 48 => 'December 18, 1989', (int) 49 => '1087, 1033,', (int) 50 => '1057', (int) 51 => '1025', (int) 52 => '1076', (int) 53 => '1054', (int) 54 => '1080', (int) 55 => '1052, 1088,', (int) 56 => '1083', (int) 57 => '1098', (int) 58 => '1042', (int) 59 => '1021', (int) 60 => '1041', (int) 61 => '1035', (int) 62 => '1050', (int) 63 => '1062', (int) 64 => '1988' ), 'QUANTITY' => array( (int) 0 => '566.025 acres' ), 'ORG' => array( (int) 0 => 'Punjab Government', (int) 1 => 'The Special Land Acquisition Collector', (int) 2 => 'the Land Acquisition Court', (int) 3 => 'The Land Acquisition Court', (int) 4 => 'the Land Acquisition Court', (int) 5 => 'Court', (int) 6 => 'Court', (int) 7 => 'Letters Patent', (int) 8 => 'the apex Court', (int) 9 => 'Union of India', (int) 10 => 'the Land Acquisition Court', (int) 11 => 'Land Acquisition Court', (int) 12 => 'the High Court', (int) 13 => 'The Union of India', (int) 14 => 'the High Court', (int) 15 => 'Court', (int) 16 => 'the apex Court', (int) 17 => 'the High Court', (int) 18 => 'Court', (int) 19 => 'the High Court', (int) 20 => 'Letters Patent Appeals', (int) 21 => 'the Land Acquisition Court', (int) 22 => 'Court', (int) 23 => 'Letters Patent Appeals Nos', (int) 24 => 'Court', (int) 25 => 'Court', (int) 26 => 'Letters Patent Appeals No', (int) 27 => 'Letters Patent' ), 'CARDINAL' => array( (int) 0 => '8)', (int) 1 => '23(2', (int) 2 => '1', (int) 3 => 'three', (int) 4 => '4', (int) 5 => 'one', (int) 6 => '1087,1033,1057,1025', (int) 7 => '5' ), 'MONEY' => array( (int) 0 => '9 per cent', (int) 1 => '15 per cent', (int) 2 => '12 per cent', (int) 3 => '9 per cent', (int) 4 => '15 per cent', (int) 5 => '30 per cent' ), 'ORDINAL' => array( (int) 0 => 'first', (int) 1 => 'first' ), 'LOC' => array( (int) 0 => 'Single', (int) 1 => 'Single Judge', (int) 2 => 'Single', (int) 3 => 'Single' ) ), 'desc' => array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '627055', 'acts' => '<a href="/act/51407/land-acquisition-act-1894-complete-act">Land Acquisition Act, 1894</a> - Sections 23(1A) and 54', 'appealno' => 'L.P.A. No. 1087 of 1988', 'appellant' => 'Union of India (Uoi)', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'Union of India (Uoi) Vs. Arjan Singh', 'casenote' => ' - ', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => 'Union of India and Ors. v. Filip Tiago De Gama of Vedem Vasco De Gama.;', 'citingcases' => '', 'counselplain' => ' Harpal Singh Brar, Sr. Adv. and; P.S. Teji, Adv.', 'counseldef' => ' G.S. Doad and; Rakesh Garg, Advs.', 'court' => 'Punjab and Haryana', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '1990-05-21', 'deposition' => '', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => ' I.S. Tiwana and; G.R. Majithia, JJ.', 'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">G.R. Majithia, J. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. This judgment will dispose of L. P. A. No. 1087 of 1988 and connected L. P A. Nos. 1019 to 1086 of 1988. 1088 of 1988, 1089 of 1988 and 1091 to 1102 of 1988 as common questions of law arise in these appeals.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. In order to appreciate the contention raised, it is necessary to state a few relevant facts. Land measuring 566.025 acres situate in the revenue estate of Gobindpura was acquired by the Punjab Government vide notification No 13/2/78/JJ-II (8) PB/5408/E/Act/5893 dated May 10, 1970 Published on June 8, 1979 under Section 4 of the <a href="/act/51407/land-acquisition-act-1894-complete-act">Land Acquisition Act, 1894</a> (for short, the Act). Declaration under Section 6 of the Act was published on October 26, 1979. The Special Land Acquisition Collector gave his award on March 31, 1981 The claimants, dissatisfied with the award got the reference under Section 18 of the Act made to the Land Acquisition Court. The Land Acquisition Court vide its award dated August 11, 1986 held that the Collector had correctly assessed the compensation for the land acquired. However, it allowed to the claimants the benefit under Section 23(1A) and 23(2) of the Act as amended by Act 68 of 1984 (for short, the Amending Act) and also interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum for a period of one year from the date of taking possession of the acquired land and thereafter at the rate of 15 per cent upto the date of payment.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The appellant, aggrieved against the award of the Land Acquisition Court, Came to this Court in regular first appeals and the learned Single Judge of this Court vide his judgment dated May 1, 1987 dismissed the same Dissatisfied with the judgment of the learned Single Judge, the appellant preferred Letters Patent appeals and has assailed the same principally on the ground that the claimants are not entitled to the benefit of the provisions of Section 23 (1- A) of the Amending Act. The learned counsel for the appellant in support of his submission relies upon a recent judgment of the apex Court reported as Union of India and Ors. v. Filip Tiago De Gama of Vedem Vasco De Gama., (1990) 1 S.C.C.277, In that case, the land was acquired by a notification wider Section 4 of the, Act published on October 26, 1967, followed by declaration under Section 6 of the Act published on February 23,1968. The Land Acquisition Officer made his award determining compensation of March 5, 1969. The claimants got the references under Section 18 of the Act made to the Land Acquisition Court, he Land Acquisition Court vide its award dated May 28, 1985 enhanced the compensation. On appeal, following three additional reliefs were granted by the High Court to the claimants :--</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(i) Additional amount at the rate of 12 per cent of the market value from the date of notification under Section 4 till the date of taking over possession;</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (ii) Interest at the rate of 9 per cent for the first year from the date of taking possession and 15 per cent for the subsequent years; and </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (iii) Solatium at 30 per cent of the market value. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The Union of India challenged the judgment of the High Court in the apex Court and the apex Court held thus :--</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'In the result, the appeal is allowed in part. The judgment of the High Court is modified and the compensation awarded under Section 23(1A) is deleted. The Judgment and decree in other respects are kept undisturbed.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">After so holding, the apex Court modified the judgment and decree of the High Court and deleted the compensation awarded under Section 23(1A) of the Amending Act. This judgment supports the claim of the appellant, but the appellant have one more formidable difficulty in their way. The respondent-claimants in Letters Patent Appeals No. 1087,1033,1057,1025, 1076, 1054, 1080. 1052, 1080, 1083, 1098. 1042, 1021. 1041. 1035, 1050, 1062 and 1040 of 1988 had also challenged the award of the Land Acquisition Court in this Court under Section 54 of the Act by way of regular first appeal and the same were disposed of by a learned Single Judge. They successfully challenged the judgment of the learned Single Judge in Letters Patent Appeals Nos. 1436, 1446, 1442, 1431, 1435, 1443, 1438, 1441, 1439, 1447, 1443, 1412, 1440, 1431, 1444, 1437, 1448 and 1445 of 1988 and got the benefit under Section 23(1-A) of the Amending Act vide judgment dated December 18, 1989 rendered by the Letters Patent Bench </p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. The appellant did not get its cross appeals disposed of along with the claimants' appeals. Resultant effect is that this Court in the appeals filed by the claimants-landowners allowed the benefit of Section 23 (1-A) of the Amending Act to them. The judgment has attained finality so far as this Court is concerned. It will result in passing conflicting judgments if the appeals filed by the appellant are allowed in cases where the respondent-claimants have already been granted the benefit of Section 23 (1-A) of the amending Act. The appeals against those respondent-claimants have to be dismissed. Consequently, we have no other alternative but to dismiss Letters Patent Appeals No. 1087, 1033, 1057, 1025, 1076, 1054, 1080, 1052, 1088, 1083, 1098, 1042, 1021, 1041, 1035. 1050, 1062 and 1040 of 1988 in which the respondent-claimants have already obtained an order in their favour allowing them the benefit of Section 23(1- A) of the amending Act The other Letters Patent appeals are allowed to the extent of indicated above but with no order as to costs.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => '(1990)98PLR375', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'Arjan Singh', 'sub' => 'Property;Civil', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ), 'args' => array( (int) 0 => '627055' ) ) $title_for_layout = 'Union of India (Uoi) Vs. Arjan Singh Semantic Analysis' $shops = array( 'LAW' => array( (int) 0 => 'Section 4', (int) 1 => 'Section 6', (int) 2 => 'Section 18 of the Act', (int) 3 => 'Section 23(1A', (int) 4 => 'Act 68 of 1984', (int) 5 => 'the Amending Act', (int) 6 => 'Section 23', (int) 7 => 'the Amending Act', (int) 8 => 'Section 4 of the', (int) 9 => 'Section 6', (int) 10 => 'Section 18 of the Act', (int) 11 => 'Section 4', (int) 12 => 'Section 23(1A', (int) 13 => 'Section 23(1A', (int) 14 => 'the Amending Act', (int) 15 => 'Section 54', (int) 16 => 'Section 23(1-A', (int) 17 => 'the Amending Act', (int) 18 => 'Section 23', (int) 19 => 'the Amending Act', (int) 20 => 'Section 23' ), 'PERSON' => array( (int) 0 => 'G.R. Majithia', (int) 1 => 'L. P. A. No', (int) 2 => 'Gobindpura', (int) 3 => 'Filip Tiago De Gama' ), 'DATE' => array( (int) 0 => '1988', (int) 1 => '1019 to 1086 of 1988', (int) 2 => '1088 of 1988', (int) 3 => '1089 of 1988', (int) 4 => '1091', (int) 5 => '1988', (int) 6 => 'May 10, 1970', (int) 7 => 'June 8, 1979', (int) 8 => '1894', (int) 9 => 'October 26, 1979', (int) 10 => 'March 31, 1981', (int) 11 => 'August 11, 1986', (int) 12 => 'one year', (int) 13 => 'May 1, 1987', (int) 14 => '1990', (int) 15 => 'October 26, 1967', (int) 16 => 'February 23,1968', (int) 17 => 'March 5, 1969', (int) 18 => 'May 28, 1985', (int) 19 => 'the first year', (int) 20 => 'the subsequent years', (int) 21 => '1076', (int) 22 => '1054', (int) 23 => '1080', (int) 24 => '1052, 1080, 1083, 1098', (int) 25 => '1042', (int) 26 => '1021', (int) 27 => '1041', (int) 28 => '1035', (int) 29 => '1050', (int) 30 => '1062', (int) 31 => '1988', (int) 32 => '1436, 1446, 1442,', (int) 33 => '1431', (int) 34 => '1435', (int) 35 => '1443', (int) 36 => '1438', (int) 37 => '1441', (int) 38 => '1439', (int) 39 => '1447', (int) 40 => '1443', (int) 41 => '1412', (int) 42 => '1440', (int) 43 => '1431', (int) 44 => '1444', (int) 45 => '1437', (int) 46 => '1448', (int) 47 => '1445 of 1988', (int) 48 => 'December 18, 1989', (int) 49 => '1087, 1033,', (int) 50 => '1057', (int) 51 => '1025', (int) 52 => '1076', (int) 53 => '1054', (int) 54 => '1080', (int) 55 => '1052, 1088,', (int) 56 => '1083', (int) 57 => '1098', (int) 58 => '1042', (int) 59 => '1021', (int) 60 => '1041', (int) 61 => '1035', (int) 62 => '1050', (int) 63 => '1062', (int) 64 => '1988' ), 'QUANTITY' => array( (int) 0 => '566.025 acres' ), 'ORG' => array( (int) 0 => 'Punjab Government', (int) 1 => 'The Special Land Acquisition Collector', (int) 2 => 'the Land Acquisition Court', (int) 3 => 'The Land Acquisition Court', (int) 4 => 'the Land Acquisition Court', (int) 5 => 'Court', (int) 6 => 'Court', (int) 7 => 'Letters Patent', (int) 8 => 'the apex Court', (int) 9 => 'Union of India', (int) 10 => 'the Land Acquisition Court', (int) 11 => 'Land Acquisition Court', (int) 12 => 'the High Court', (int) 13 => 'The Union of India', (int) 14 => 'the High Court', (int) 15 => 'Court', (int) 16 => 'the apex Court', (int) 17 => 'the High Court', (int) 18 => 'Court', (int) 19 => 'the High Court', (int) 20 => 'Letters Patent Appeals', (int) 21 => 'the Land Acquisition Court', (int) 22 => 'Court', (int) 23 => 'Letters Patent Appeals Nos', (int) 24 => 'Court', (int) 25 => 'Court', (int) 26 => 'Letters Patent Appeals No', (int) 27 => 'Letters Patent' ), 'CARDINAL' => array( (int) 0 => '8)', (int) 1 => '23(2', (int) 2 => '1', (int) 3 => 'three', (int) 4 => '4', (int) 5 => 'one', (int) 6 => '1087,1033,1057,1025', (int) 7 => '5' ), 'MONEY' => array( (int) 0 => '9 per cent', (int) 1 => '15 per cent', (int) 2 => '12 per cent', (int) 3 => '9 per cent', (int) 4 => '15 per cent', (int) 5 => '30 per cent' ), 'ORDINAL' => array( (int) 0 => 'first', (int) 1 => 'first' ), 'LOC' => array( (int) 0 => 'Single', (int) 1 => 'Single Judge', (int) 2 => 'Single', (int) 3 => 'Single' ) ) $desc = array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '627055', 'acts' => '<a href="/act/51407/land-acquisition-act-1894-complete-act">Land Acquisition Act, 1894</a> - Sections 23(1A) and 54', 'appealno' => 'L.P.A. No. 1087 of 1988', 'appellant' => 'Union of India (Uoi)', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'Union of India (Uoi) Vs. Arjan Singh', 'casenote' => ' - ', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => 'Union of India and Ors. v. Filip Tiago De Gama of Vedem Vasco De Gama.;', 'citingcases' => '', 'counselplain' => ' Harpal Singh Brar, Sr. Adv. and; P.S. Teji, Adv.', 'counseldef' => ' G.S. Doad and; Rakesh Garg, Advs.', 'court' => 'Punjab and Haryana', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '1990-05-21', 'deposition' => '', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => ' I.S. Tiwana and; G.R. Majithia, JJ.', 'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">G.R. Majithia, J. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. This judgment will dispose of L. P. A. No. 1087 of 1988 and connected L. P A. Nos. 1019 to 1086 of 1988. 1088 of 1988, 1089 of 1988 and 1091 to 1102 of 1988 as common questions of law arise in these appeals.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. In order to appreciate the contention raised, it is necessary to state a few relevant facts. Land measuring 566.025 acres situate in the revenue estate of Gobindpura was acquired by the Punjab Government vide notification No 13/2/78/JJ-II (8) PB/5408/E/Act/5893 dated May 10, 1970 Published on June 8, 1979 under Section 4 of the <a href="/act/51407/land-acquisition-act-1894-complete-act">Land Acquisition Act, 1894</a> (for short, the Act). Declaration under Section 6 of the Act was published on October 26, 1979. The Special Land Acquisition Collector gave his award on March 31, 1981 The claimants, dissatisfied with the award got the reference under Section 18 of the Act made to the Land Acquisition Court. The Land Acquisition Court vide its award dated August 11, 1986 held that the Collector had correctly assessed the compensation for the land acquired. However, it allowed to the claimants the benefit under Section 23(1A) and 23(2) of the Act as amended by Act 68 of 1984 (for short, the Amending Act) and also interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum for a period of one year from the date of taking possession of the acquired land and thereafter at the rate of 15 per cent upto the date of payment.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The appellant, aggrieved against the award of the Land Acquisition Court, Came to this Court in regular first appeals and the learned Single Judge of this Court vide his judgment dated May 1, 1987 dismissed the same Dissatisfied with the judgment of the learned Single Judge, the appellant preferred Letters Patent appeals and has assailed the same principally on the ground that the claimants are not entitled to the benefit of the provisions of Section 23 (1- A) of the Amending Act. The learned counsel for the appellant in support of his submission relies upon a recent judgment of the apex Court reported as Union of India and Ors. v. Filip Tiago De Gama of Vedem Vasco De Gama., (1990) 1 S.C.C.277, In that case, the land was acquired by a notification wider Section 4 of the, Act published on October 26, 1967, followed by declaration under Section 6 of the Act published on February 23,1968. The Land Acquisition Officer made his award determining compensation of March 5, 1969. The claimants got the references under Section 18 of the Act made to the Land Acquisition Court, he Land Acquisition Court vide its award dated May 28, 1985 enhanced the compensation. On appeal, following three additional reliefs were granted by the High Court to the claimants :--</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(i) Additional amount at the rate of 12 per cent of the market value from the date of notification under Section 4 till the date of taking over possession;</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (ii) Interest at the rate of 9 per cent for the first year from the date of taking possession and 15 per cent for the subsequent years; and </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (iii) Solatium at 30 per cent of the market value. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The Union of India challenged the judgment of the High Court in the apex Court and the apex Court held thus :--</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'In the result, the appeal is allowed in part. The judgment of the High Court is modified and the compensation awarded under Section 23(1A) is deleted. The Judgment and decree in other respects are kept undisturbed.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">After so holding, the apex Court modified the judgment and decree of the High Court and deleted the compensation awarded under Section 23(1A) of the Amending Act. This judgment supports the claim of the appellant, but the appellant have one more formidable difficulty in their way. The respondent-claimants in Letters Patent Appeals No. 1087,1033,1057,1025, 1076, 1054, 1080. 1052, 1080, 1083, 1098. 1042, 1021. 1041. 1035, 1050, 1062 and 1040 of 1988 had also challenged the award of the Land Acquisition Court in this Court under Section 54 of the Act by way of regular first appeal and the same were disposed of by a learned Single Judge. They successfully challenged the judgment of the learned Single Judge in Letters Patent Appeals Nos. 1436, 1446, 1442, 1431, 1435, 1443, 1438, 1441, 1439, 1447, 1443, 1412, 1440, 1431, 1444, 1437, 1448 and 1445 of 1988 and got the benefit under Section 23(1-A) of the Amending Act vide judgment dated December 18, 1989 rendered by the Letters Patent Bench </p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. The appellant did not get its cross appeals disposed of along with the claimants' appeals. Resultant effect is that this Court in the appeals filed by the claimants-landowners allowed the benefit of Section 23 (1-A) of the Amending Act to them. The judgment has attained finality so far as this Court is concerned. It will result in passing conflicting judgments if the appeals filed by the appellant are allowed in cases where the respondent-claimants have already been granted the benefit of Section 23 (1-A) of the amending Act. The appeals against those respondent-claimants have to be dismissed. Consequently, we have no other alternative but to dismiss Letters Patent Appeals No. 1087, 1033, 1057, 1025, 1076, 1054, 1080, 1052, 1088, 1083, 1098, 1042, 1021, 1041, 1035. 1050, 1062 and 1040 of 1988 in which the respondent-claimants have already obtained an order in their favour allowing them the benefit of Section 23(1- A) of the amending Act The other Letters Patent appeals are allowed to the extent of indicated above but with no order as to costs.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => '(1990)98PLR375', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'Arjan Singh', 'sub' => 'Property;Civil', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ) $args = array( (int) 0 => '627055' ) $pattern = '/\(((0[1-9]|[12][0-9]|3[01])[.](0[1-9]|1[012])[.](17|18|19|20)[0-9]{2}).*\)/'include - APP/View/Case/meta.ctp, line 36 View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971 View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933 View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473 Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963 Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200 Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167 [main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109
Warning (2): Invalid argument supplied for foreach() [APP/View/Case/meta.ctp, line 39]Code Context//$shops = $shops['entities'];foreach ($shops2 as $key => $val) {$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/meta.ctp' $dataForView = array( 'title_for_layout' => 'Union of India (Uoi) Vs. Arjan Singh Semantic Analysis', 'shops' => array( 'LAW' => array( (int) 0 => 'Section 4', (int) 1 => 'Section 6', (int) 2 => 'Section 18 of the Act', (int) 3 => 'Section 23(1A', (int) 4 => 'Act 68 of 1984', (int) 5 => 'the Amending Act', (int) 6 => 'Section 23', (int) 7 => 'the Amending Act', (int) 8 => 'Section 4 of the', (int) 9 => 'Section 6', (int) 10 => 'Section 18 of the Act', (int) 11 => 'Section 4', (int) 12 => 'Section 23(1A', (int) 13 => 'Section 23(1A', (int) 14 => 'the Amending Act', (int) 15 => 'Section 54', (int) 16 => 'Section 23(1-A', (int) 17 => 'the Amending Act', (int) 18 => 'Section 23', (int) 19 => 'the Amending Act', (int) 20 => 'Section 23' ), 'PERSON' => array( (int) 0 => 'G.R. Majithia', (int) 1 => 'L. P. A. No', (int) 2 => 'Gobindpura', (int) 3 => 'Filip Tiago De Gama' ), 'DATE' => array( (int) 0 => '1988', (int) 1 => '1019 to 1086 of 1988', (int) 2 => '1088 of 1988', (int) 3 => '1089 of 1988', (int) 4 => '1091', (int) 5 => '1988', (int) 6 => 'May 10, 1970', (int) 7 => 'June 8, 1979', (int) 8 => '1894', (int) 9 => 'October 26, 1979', (int) 10 => 'March 31, 1981', (int) 11 => 'August 11, 1986', (int) 12 => 'one year', (int) 13 => 'May 1, 1987', (int) 14 => '1990', (int) 15 => 'October 26, 1967', (int) 16 => 'February 23,1968', (int) 17 => 'March 5, 1969', (int) 18 => 'May 28, 1985', (int) 19 => 'the first year', (int) 20 => 'the subsequent years', (int) 21 => '1076', (int) 22 => '1054', (int) 23 => '1080', (int) 24 => '1052, 1080, 1083, 1098', (int) 25 => '1042', (int) 26 => '1021', (int) 27 => '1041', (int) 28 => '1035', (int) 29 => '1050', (int) 30 => '1062', (int) 31 => '1988', (int) 32 => '1436, 1446, 1442,', (int) 33 => '1431', (int) 34 => '1435', (int) 35 => '1443', (int) 36 => '1438', (int) 37 => '1441', (int) 38 => '1439', (int) 39 => '1447', (int) 40 => '1443', (int) 41 => '1412', (int) 42 => '1440', (int) 43 => '1431', (int) 44 => '1444', (int) 45 => '1437', (int) 46 => '1448', (int) 47 => '1445 of 1988', (int) 48 => 'December 18, 1989', (int) 49 => '1087, 1033,', (int) 50 => '1057', (int) 51 => '1025', (int) 52 => '1076', (int) 53 => '1054', (int) 54 => '1080', (int) 55 => '1052, 1088,', (int) 56 => '1083', (int) 57 => '1098', (int) 58 => '1042', (int) 59 => '1021', (int) 60 => '1041', (int) 61 => '1035', (int) 62 => '1050', (int) 63 => '1062', (int) 64 => '1988' ), 'QUANTITY' => array( (int) 0 => '566.025 acres' ), 'ORG' => array( (int) 0 => 'Punjab Government', (int) 1 => 'The Special Land Acquisition Collector', (int) 2 => 'the Land Acquisition Court', (int) 3 => 'The Land Acquisition Court', (int) 4 => 'the Land Acquisition Court', (int) 5 => 'Court', (int) 6 => 'Court', (int) 7 => 'Letters Patent', (int) 8 => 'the apex Court', (int) 9 => 'Union of India', (int) 10 => 'the Land Acquisition Court', (int) 11 => 'Land Acquisition Court', (int) 12 => 'the High Court', (int) 13 => 'The Union of India', (int) 14 => 'the High Court', (int) 15 => 'Court', (int) 16 => 'the apex Court', (int) 17 => 'the High Court', (int) 18 => 'Court', (int) 19 => 'the High Court', (int) 20 => 'Letters Patent Appeals', (int) 21 => 'the Land Acquisition Court', (int) 22 => 'Court', (int) 23 => 'Letters Patent Appeals Nos', (int) 24 => 'Court', (int) 25 => 'Court', (int) 26 => 'Letters Patent Appeals No', (int) 27 => 'Letters Patent' ), 'CARDINAL' => array( (int) 0 => '8)', (int) 1 => '23(2', (int) 2 => '1', (int) 3 => 'three', (int) 4 => '4', (int) 5 => 'one', (int) 6 => '1087,1033,1057,1025', (int) 7 => '5' ), 'MONEY' => array( (int) 0 => '9 per cent', (int) 1 => '15 per cent', (int) 2 => '12 per cent', (int) 3 => '9 per cent', (int) 4 => '15 per cent', (int) 5 => '30 per cent' ), 'ORDINAL' => array( (int) 0 => 'first', (int) 1 => 'first' ), 'LOC' => array( (int) 0 => 'Single', (int) 1 => 'Single Judge', (int) 2 => 'Single', (int) 3 => 'Single' ) ), 'desc' => array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '627055', 'acts' => '<a href="/act/51407/land-acquisition-act-1894-complete-act">Land Acquisition Act, 1894</a> - Sections 23(1A) and 54', 'appealno' => 'L.P.A. No. 1087 of 1988', 'appellant' => 'Union of India (Uoi)', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'Union of India (Uoi) Vs. Arjan Singh', 'casenote' => ' - ', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => 'Union of India and Ors. v. Filip Tiago De Gama of Vedem Vasco De Gama.;', 'citingcases' => '', 'counselplain' => ' Harpal Singh Brar, Sr. Adv. and; P.S. Teji, Adv.', 'counseldef' => ' G.S. Doad and; Rakesh Garg, Advs.', 'court' => 'Punjab and Haryana', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '1990-05-21', 'deposition' => '', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => ' I.S. Tiwana and; G.R. Majithia, JJ.', 'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">G.R. Majithia, J. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. This judgment will dispose of L. P. A. No. 1087 of 1988 and connected L. P A. Nos. 1019 to 1086 of 1988. 1088 of 1988, 1089 of 1988 and 1091 to 1102 of 1988 as common questions of law arise in these appeals.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. In order to appreciate the contention raised, it is necessary to state a few relevant facts. Land measuring 566.025 acres situate in the revenue estate of Gobindpura was acquired by the Punjab Government vide notification No 13/2/78/JJ-II (8) PB/5408/E/Act/5893 dated May 10, 1970 Published on June 8, 1979 under Section 4 of the <a href="/act/51407/land-acquisition-act-1894-complete-act">Land Acquisition Act, 1894</a> (for short, the Act). Declaration under Section 6 of the Act was published on October 26, 1979. The Special Land Acquisition Collector gave his award on March 31, 1981 The claimants, dissatisfied with the award got the reference under Section 18 of the Act made to the Land Acquisition Court. The Land Acquisition Court vide its award dated August 11, 1986 held that the Collector had correctly assessed the compensation for the land acquired. However, it allowed to the claimants the benefit under Section 23(1A) and 23(2) of the Act as amended by Act 68 of 1984 (for short, the Amending Act) and also interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum for a period of one year from the date of taking possession of the acquired land and thereafter at the rate of 15 per cent upto the date of payment.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The appellant, aggrieved against the award of the Land Acquisition Court, Came to this Court in regular first appeals and the learned Single Judge of this Court vide his judgment dated May 1, 1987 dismissed the same Dissatisfied with the judgment of the learned Single Judge, the appellant preferred Letters Patent appeals and has assailed the same principally on the ground that the claimants are not entitled to the benefit of the provisions of Section 23 (1- A) of the Amending Act. The learned counsel for the appellant in support of his submission relies upon a recent judgment of the apex Court reported as Union of India and Ors. v. Filip Tiago De Gama of Vedem Vasco De Gama., (1990) 1 S.C.C.277, In that case, the land was acquired by a notification wider Section 4 of the, Act published on October 26, 1967, followed by declaration under Section 6 of the Act published on February 23,1968. The Land Acquisition Officer made his award determining compensation of March 5, 1969. The claimants got the references under Section 18 of the Act made to the Land Acquisition Court, he Land Acquisition Court vide its award dated May 28, 1985 enhanced the compensation. On appeal, following three additional reliefs were granted by the High Court to the claimants :--</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(i) Additional amount at the rate of 12 per cent of the market value from the date of notification under Section 4 till the date of taking over possession;</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (ii) Interest at the rate of 9 per cent for the first year from the date of taking possession and 15 per cent for the subsequent years; and </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (iii) Solatium at 30 per cent of the market value. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The Union of India challenged the judgment of the High Court in the apex Court and the apex Court held thus :--</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'In the result, the appeal is allowed in part. The judgment of the High Court is modified and the compensation awarded under Section 23(1A) is deleted. The Judgment and decree in other respects are kept undisturbed.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">After so holding, the apex Court modified the judgment and decree of the High Court and deleted the compensation awarded under Section 23(1A) of the Amending Act. This judgment supports the claim of the appellant, but the appellant have one more formidable difficulty in their way. The respondent-claimants in Letters Patent Appeals No. 1087,1033,1057,1025, 1076, 1054, 1080. 1052, 1080, 1083, 1098. 1042, 1021. 1041. 1035, 1050, 1062 and 1040 of 1988 had also challenged the award of the Land Acquisition Court in this Court under Section 54 of the Act by way of regular first appeal and the same were disposed of by a learned Single Judge. They successfully challenged the judgment of the learned Single Judge in Letters Patent Appeals Nos. 1436, 1446, 1442, 1431, 1435, 1443, 1438, 1441, 1439, 1447, 1443, 1412, 1440, 1431, 1444, 1437, 1448 and 1445 of 1988 and got the benefit under Section 23(1-A) of the Amending Act vide judgment dated December 18, 1989 rendered by the Letters Patent Bench </p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. The appellant did not get its cross appeals disposed of along with the claimants' appeals. Resultant effect is that this Court in the appeals filed by the claimants-landowners allowed the benefit of Section 23 (1-A) of the Amending Act to them. The judgment has attained finality so far as this Court is concerned. It will result in passing conflicting judgments if the appeals filed by the appellant are allowed in cases where the respondent-claimants have already been granted the benefit of Section 23 (1-A) of the amending Act. The appeals against those respondent-claimants have to be dismissed. Consequently, we have no other alternative but to dismiss Letters Patent Appeals No. 1087, 1033, 1057, 1025, 1076, 1054, 1080, 1052, 1088, 1083, 1098, 1042, 1021, 1041, 1035. 1050, 1062 and 1040 of 1988 in which the respondent-claimants have already obtained an order in their favour allowing them the benefit of Section 23(1- A) of the amending Act The other Letters Patent appeals are allowed to the extent of indicated above but with no order as to costs.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => '(1990)98PLR375', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'Arjan Singh', 'sub' => 'Property;Civil', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ), 'args' => array( (int) 0 => '627055' ) ) $title_for_layout = 'Union of India (Uoi) Vs. Arjan Singh Semantic Analysis' $shops = array( 'LAW' => array( (int) 0 => 'Section 4', (int) 1 => 'Section 6', (int) 2 => 'Section 18 of the Act', (int) 3 => 'Section 23(1A', (int) 4 => 'Act 68 of 1984', (int) 5 => 'the Amending Act', (int) 6 => 'Section 23', (int) 7 => 'the Amending Act', (int) 8 => 'Section 4 of the', (int) 9 => 'Section 6', (int) 10 => 'Section 18 of the Act', (int) 11 => 'Section 4', (int) 12 => 'Section 23(1A', (int) 13 => 'Section 23(1A', (int) 14 => 'the Amending Act', (int) 15 => 'Section 54', (int) 16 => 'Section 23(1-A', (int) 17 => 'the Amending Act', (int) 18 => 'Section 23', (int) 19 => 'the Amending Act', (int) 20 => 'Section 23' ), 'PERSON' => array( (int) 0 => 'G.R. Majithia', (int) 1 => 'L. P. A. No', (int) 2 => 'Gobindpura', (int) 3 => 'Filip Tiago De Gama' ), 'DATE' => array( (int) 0 => '1988', (int) 1 => '1019 to 1086 of 1988', (int) 2 => '1088 of 1988', (int) 3 => '1089 of 1988', (int) 4 => '1091', (int) 5 => '1988', (int) 6 => 'May 10, 1970', (int) 7 => 'June 8, 1979', (int) 8 => '1894', (int) 9 => 'October 26, 1979', (int) 10 => 'March 31, 1981', (int) 11 => 'August 11, 1986', (int) 12 => 'one year', (int) 13 => 'May 1, 1987', (int) 14 => '1990', (int) 15 => 'October 26, 1967', (int) 16 => 'February 23,1968', (int) 17 => 'March 5, 1969', (int) 18 => 'May 28, 1985', (int) 19 => 'the first year', (int) 20 => 'the subsequent years', (int) 21 => '1076', (int) 22 => '1054', (int) 23 => '1080', (int) 24 => '1052, 1080, 1083, 1098', (int) 25 => '1042', (int) 26 => '1021', (int) 27 => '1041', (int) 28 => '1035', (int) 29 => '1050', (int) 30 => '1062', (int) 31 => '1988', (int) 32 => '1436, 1446, 1442,', (int) 33 => '1431', (int) 34 => '1435', (int) 35 => '1443', (int) 36 => '1438', (int) 37 => '1441', (int) 38 => '1439', (int) 39 => '1447', (int) 40 => '1443', (int) 41 => '1412', (int) 42 => '1440', (int) 43 => '1431', (int) 44 => '1444', (int) 45 => '1437', (int) 46 => '1448', (int) 47 => '1445 of 1988', (int) 48 => 'December 18, 1989', (int) 49 => '1087, 1033,', (int) 50 => '1057', (int) 51 => '1025', (int) 52 => '1076', (int) 53 => '1054', (int) 54 => '1080', (int) 55 => '1052, 1088,', (int) 56 => '1083', (int) 57 => '1098', (int) 58 => '1042', (int) 59 => '1021', (int) 60 => '1041', (int) 61 => '1035', (int) 62 => '1050', (int) 63 => '1062', (int) 64 => '1988' ), 'QUANTITY' => array( (int) 0 => '566.025 acres' ), 'ORG' => array( (int) 0 => 'Punjab Government', (int) 1 => 'The Special Land Acquisition Collector', (int) 2 => 'the Land Acquisition Court', (int) 3 => 'The Land Acquisition Court', (int) 4 => 'the Land Acquisition Court', (int) 5 => 'Court', (int) 6 => 'Court', (int) 7 => 'Letters Patent', (int) 8 => 'the apex Court', (int) 9 => 'Union of India', (int) 10 => 'the Land Acquisition Court', (int) 11 => 'Land Acquisition Court', (int) 12 => 'the High Court', (int) 13 => 'The Union of India', (int) 14 => 'the High Court', (int) 15 => 'Court', (int) 16 => 'the apex Court', (int) 17 => 'the High Court', (int) 18 => 'Court', (int) 19 => 'the High Court', (int) 20 => 'Letters Patent Appeals', (int) 21 => 'the Land Acquisition Court', (int) 22 => 'Court', (int) 23 => 'Letters Patent Appeals Nos', (int) 24 => 'Court', (int) 25 => 'Court', (int) 26 => 'Letters Patent Appeals No', (int) 27 => 'Letters Patent' ), 'CARDINAL' => array( (int) 0 => '8)', (int) 1 => '23(2', (int) 2 => '1', (int) 3 => 'three', (int) 4 => '4', (int) 5 => 'one', (int) 6 => '1087,1033,1057,1025', (int) 7 => '5' ), 'MONEY' => array( (int) 0 => '9 per cent', (int) 1 => '15 per cent', (int) 2 => '12 per cent', (int) 3 => '9 per cent', (int) 4 => '15 per cent', (int) 5 => '30 per cent' ), 'ORDINAL' => array( (int) 0 => 'first', (int) 1 => 'first' ), 'LOC' => array( (int) 0 => 'Single', (int) 1 => 'Single Judge', (int) 2 => 'Single', (int) 3 => 'Single' ) ) $desc = array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '627055', 'acts' => '<a href="/act/51407/land-acquisition-act-1894-complete-act">Land Acquisition Act, 1894</a> - Sections 23(1A) and 54', 'appealno' => 'L.P.A. No. 1087 of 1988', 'appellant' => 'Union of India (Uoi)', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'Union of India (Uoi) Vs. Arjan Singh', 'casenote' => ' - ', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => 'Union of India and Ors. v. Filip Tiago De Gama of Vedem Vasco De Gama.;', 'citingcases' => '', 'counselplain' => ' Harpal Singh Brar, Sr. Adv. and; P.S. Teji, Adv.', 'counseldef' => ' G.S. Doad and; Rakesh Garg, Advs.', 'court' => 'Punjab and Haryana', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '1990-05-21', 'deposition' => '', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => ' I.S. Tiwana and; G.R. Majithia, JJ.', 'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">G.R. Majithia, J. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. This judgment will dispose of L. P. A. No. 1087 of 1988 and connected L. P A. Nos. 1019 to 1086 of 1988. 1088 of 1988, 1089 of 1988 and 1091 to 1102 of 1988 as common questions of law arise in these appeals.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. In order to appreciate the contention raised, it is necessary to state a few relevant facts. Land measuring 566.025 acres situate in the revenue estate of Gobindpura was acquired by the Punjab Government vide notification No 13/2/78/JJ-II (8) PB/5408/E/Act/5893 dated May 10, 1970 Published on June 8, 1979 under Section 4 of the <a href="/act/51407/land-acquisition-act-1894-complete-act">Land Acquisition Act, 1894</a> (for short, the Act). Declaration under Section 6 of the Act was published on October 26, 1979. The Special Land Acquisition Collector gave his award on March 31, 1981 The claimants, dissatisfied with the award got the reference under Section 18 of the Act made to the Land Acquisition Court. The Land Acquisition Court vide its award dated August 11, 1986 held that the Collector had correctly assessed the compensation for the land acquired. However, it allowed to the claimants the benefit under Section 23(1A) and 23(2) of the Act as amended by Act 68 of 1984 (for short, the Amending Act) and also interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum for a period of one year from the date of taking possession of the acquired land and thereafter at the rate of 15 per cent upto the date of payment.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The appellant, aggrieved against the award of the Land Acquisition Court, Came to this Court in regular first appeals and the learned Single Judge of this Court vide his judgment dated May 1, 1987 dismissed the same Dissatisfied with the judgment of the learned Single Judge, the appellant preferred Letters Patent appeals and has assailed the same principally on the ground that the claimants are not entitled to the benefit of the provisions of Section 23 (1- A) of the Amending Act. The learned counsel for the appellant in support of his submission relies upon a recent judgment of the apex Court reported as Union of India and Ors. v. Filip Tiago De Gama of Vedem Vasco De Gama., (1990) 1 S.C.C.277, In that case, the land was acquired by a notification wider Section 4 of the, Act published on October 26, 1967, followed by declaration under Section 6 of the Act published on February 23,1968. The Land Acquisition Officer made his award determining compensation of March 5, 1969. The claimants got the references under Section 18 of the Act made to the Land Acquisition Court, he Land Acquisition Court vide its award dated May 28, 1985 enhanced the compensation. On appeal, following three additional reliefs were granted by the High Court to the claimants :--</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(i) Additional amount at the rate of 12 per cent of the market value from the date of notification under Section 4 till the date of taking over possession;</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (ii) Interest at the rate of 9 per cent for the first year from the date of taking possession and 15 per cent for the subsequent years; and </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (iii) Solatium at 30 per cent of the market value. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The Union of India challenged the judgment of the High Court in the apex Court and the apex Court held thus :--</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'In the result, the appeal is allowed in part. The judgment of the High Court is modified and the compensation awarded under Section 23(1A) is deleted. The Judgment and decree in other respects are kept undisturbed.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">After so holding, the apex Court modified the judgment and decree of the High Court and deleted the compensation awarded under Section 23(1A) of the Amending Act. This judgment supports the claim of the appellant, but the appellant have one more formidable difficulty in their way. The respondent-claimants in Letters Patent Appeals No. 1087,1033,1057,1025, 1076, 1054, 1080. 1052, 1080, 1083, 1098. 1042, 1021. 1041. 1035, 1050, 1062 and 1040 of 1988 had also challenged the award of the Land Acquisition Court in this Court under Section 54 of the Act by way of regular first appeal and the same were disposed of by a learned Single Judge. They successfully challenged the judgment of the learned Single Judge in Letters Patent Appeals Nos. 1436, 1446, 1442, 1431, 1435, 1443, 1438, 1441, 1439, 1447, 1443, 1412, 1440, 1431, 1444, 1437, 1448 and 1445 of 1988 and got the benefit under Section 23(1-A) of the Amending Act vide judgment dated December 18, 1989 rendered by the Letters Patent Bench </p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. The appellant did not get its cross appeals disposed of along with the claimants' appeals. Resultant effect is that this Court in the appeals filed by the claimants-landowners allowed the benefit of Section 23 (1-A) of the Amending Act to them. The judgment has attained finality so far as this Court is concerned. It will result in passing conflicting judgments if the appeals filed by the appellant are allowed in cases where the respondent-claimants have already been granted the benefit of Section 23 (1-A) of the amending Act. The appeals against those respondent-claimants have to be dismissed. Consequently, we have no other alternative but to dismiss Letters Patent Appeals No. 1087, 1033, 1057, 1025, 1076, 1054, 1080, 1052, 1088, 1083, 1098, 1042, 1021, 1041, 1035. 1050, 1062 and 1040 of 1988 in which the respondent-claimants have already obtained an order in their favour allowing them the benefit of Section 23(1- A) of the amending Act The other Letters Patent appeals are allowed to the extent of indicated above but with no order as to costs.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => '(1990)98PLR375', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'Arjan Singh', 'sub' => 'Property;Civil', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ) $args = array( (int) 0 => '627055' ) $pattern = '/\(((0[1-9]|[12][0-9]|3[01])[.](0[1-9]|1[012])[.](17|18|19|20)[0-9]{2}).*\)/' $shops2 = nullinclude - APP/View/Case/meta.ctp, line 39 View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971 View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933 View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473 Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963 Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200 Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167 [main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109
LAW: Section 4, Section 6, Section 18 of the Act, Section 23(1A, Act 68 of 1984, the Amending Act, Section 23, the Amending Act, Section 4 of the, Section 6, Section 18 of the Act, Section 4, Section 23(1A, Section 23(1A, the Amending Act, Section 54, Section 23(1-A, the Amending Act, Section 23, the Amending Act, Section 23
PERSON: G.R. Majithia, L. P. A. No, Gobindpura, Filip Tiago De Gama
DATE: 1988, 1019 to 1086 of 1988, 1088 of 1988, 1089 of 1988, 1091, 1988, May 10, 1970, June 8, 1979, 1894, October 26, 1979, March 31, 1981, August 11, 1986, one year, May 1, 1987, 1990, October 26, 1967, February 23,1968, March 5, 1969, May 28, 1985, the first year, the subsequent years, 1076, 1054, 1080, 1052, 1080, 1083, 1098, 1042, 1021, 1041, 1035, 1050, 1062, 1988, 1436, 1446, 1442,, 1431, 1435, 1443, 1438, 1441, 1439, 1447, 1443, 1412, 1440, 1431, 1444, 1437, 1448, 1445 of 1988, December 18, 1989, 1087, 1033,, 1057, 1025, 1076, 1054, 1080, 1052, 1088,, 1083, 1098, 1042, 1021, 1041, 1035, 1050, 1062, 1988
QUANTITY: 566.025 acres
ORG: Punjab Government, The Special Land Acquisition Collector, the Land Acquisition Court, The Land Acquisition Court, the Land Acquisition Court, Court, Court, Letters Patent, the apex Court, Union of India, the Land Acquisition Court, Land Acquisition Court, the High Court, The Union of India, the High Court, Court, the apex Court, the High Court, Court, the High Court, Letters Patent Appeals, the Land Acquisition Court, Court, Letters Patent Appeals Nos, Court, Court, Letters Patent Appeals No, Letters Patent
CARDINAL: 8), 23(2, 1, three, 4, one, 1087,1033,1057,1025, 5
MONEY: 9 per cent, 15 per cent, 12 per cent, 9 per cent, 15 per cent, 30 per cent
ORDINAL: first, first
LOC: Single, Single Judge, Single, Single