1975 (1) TMI 95 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues:
1. Competency of the appeal filed by the claimant without including the Punjab State.
2. Consideration of the claimant's appeal as cross-objections.
3. Determination of compensation for acquired land, building, tube-well, fruit trees, and claim filed under Section 9 of the Land Acquisition Act.

Analysis:

Issue 1:
The judgment addresses the preliminary objection raised by the State of Punjab and the Punjabi University regarding the competency of the appeal filed by the claimant. The objection was based on the claimant only making the Punjabi University a respondent, not the Punjab State, which acquired the land. Citing a judgment from the Andhra Pradesh High Court, it was argued that the claimant could only claim enhanced compensation from the Punjab State. The court found merit in this objection, concluding that the appeal filed by the claimant was not competent without including the Punjab State.

Issue 2:
The claimant argued that his appeal could be considered as cross-objections to the State of Punjab and the Punjabi University's appeal. Reference was made to a Full Bench judgment of the Lahore High Court, which discussed the treatment of cross-objections. However, the court determined that the claimant's appeal could not be treated as cross-objections since it was filed before the State of Punjab and the Punjabi University's appeal. Even if considered as cross-objections, the court found no merit in the claimant's appeal.

Issue 3:
The judgment detailed the issues framed by the Additional District Judge for determining compensation for the acquired land. The court affirmed the market value of the land based on specific Khasra numbers and upheld the decision of the Additional District Judge. Additionally, the court clarified the provisions of Section 25 of the Act regarding the total compensation claim and the claimant's entitlement to enhanced compensation for various items. The court affirmed the decisions on compensation for fruit trees, building, and tube-well based on the evidence presented, finding no scope for enhancement or reduction.

In conclusion, the court dismissed the appeals, stating that the parties would bear their own costs.