High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCWP/10172/1995dismissed

Har Raj Singh And ORS. v. State Of Punjab And ORS.

2017-05-22Mr. Justice Ramendra Jain,Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal2 pages

CWP No. 10172 of 1995 -1IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 10172 of 1995 (O&M) Date of decision : 22.5.2017 Har Raj Singh (deceased) through LRs and others .. Petitioners versus State of Punjab and others .. Respondents Coram:

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ramendra Jain

Present:

Mr. Ankur Mittal, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. Gurinderjit Singh, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab. Rajesh Bindal, J.

The only prayer made in the present petition is for direction to the respondents to pay compensation on account of acquisition of land, for which award was announced by the Land Acquisition Collector (for short, 'the Collector') on 25.1.1995. It was admitted in the petition that the petitioners herein filed objections under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, 'the Act') seeking enhancement of compensation. The petition was directed to be heard along with CWP No.8165 of 1995. The writ petition has been filed by the Indian Council of Agricultural Research, which is the beneficiary entity of the acquired land. Their grievance is that compensation has wrongly been assessed by the Collector. While admitting the aforesaid petition on 15.9.1995, 50% of the amount was directed to be paid to the landowners. None of the counsel has any information about the status of the objections, if any, filed by the landowners under Section 18 of the Act.

Sharmila Devi 2017.07.04 10:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP No. 10172 of 1995 -2Considering the factual matrix, in our opinion, nothing survives in the present petition. In case, CWP No.8165 of 1995 is finally allowed or dismissed, the consequences would be the amount of compensation determined by the Collector will be payable to the landowners and in case the landowners have filed objections under Section 18 of the Act and finally the Court enhances the compensation, then even CWP No.8165 of 1995 will also become infructuous.

For the reasons mentioned above, the present petition is dismissed.

(Rajesh Bindal) Judge (Ramendra Jain) Judge 22.5.2017 sharmila Whether speaking/reasoned :

Yes/No Whether reportable :

Yes/No Sharmila Devi 2017.07.04 10:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document