STATE & ANOTHER Vs. MANI RAM BAHUGUNA
LAWS(UTN)-2013-2-64
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
Decided on February 27,2013

State And Another Appellant
VERSUS
Mani Ram Bahuguna Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) This appeal, preferred under section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act 1984 (for short, the Act), is directed against the judgment and decree dated 2.11.2001 passed by District Judge, Tehri Garhwal, in Land Acquisition Reference No.3 of 1990, whereby the claimant-respondent alongwith his brothers Padam Datt and Dev Datt was awarded a compensation of Rs.1,32,881.66 in addition to the amount what they have already received.
(2.) Brief facts, giving rise to the present appeal, are that the land belonging to the claimant-respondent and others pertaining to Ward No.1 of Tehri Town was acquired and notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was published on 11.4.1981. Thereafter the possession of the land under acquisition was taken. The Special Land Acquisition Officer (Irrigation) Tehri Garhwal, after completing necessary formalities, has passed the Award on 22-9- 1986. Being dissatisfied by the said Award, the claimantrespondent filed his objections, which gave rise to a reference under Section 18 of the Act before the District Judge. The said reference was registered as Land Acquisition Reference No. 3 of 1990.
(3.) The learned reference Court framed as many as five issues in the case:- 1. Whether the area of the land in question was 3501 Sq. Ft. or 2596 Sq. Ft 2. What was the market value of the land on the date of publication of the notification under section 4(1) of the Act 3. What was the value of the building on the land in question on the date of publication of notification under section 4(1) of the Act 4. What is the proper and adequate compensation for the property in question acquired under the Act 5. To what relief, if any, is the petitioner entitled The learned reference Court recorded the evidence led by the parties and after hearing the learned counsel for the parties has held on Issue No. 1 that the area of land in question was 2596 Sq.Ft. and not 3501 Sq.Ft and issue no.1 was decided accordingly.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.