Supreme Court of India
KAPURTHALA IMPROVEMENT TRUST, PUNJAB versus LAND ACQUISITION TRIBUNAL, KAPURTHALA AND ORS.
- Decided
- 31 October 1995
- Judges listed
- K. RAMASWAMY, B.N. KIRPAL
- Disposal
- Dismissed
Citations
- Official
- [1995] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 612 · 1995 INSC 655
Cited by
We found no other Supreme Court judgment we hold that cites this one.
Counted only in the Supreme Court judgments we hold whose text we could read, not in High Court judgments. We match each citation to a judgment automatically, so a citation we cannot match is not counted. "Cited" says only that a judgment refers to this one, not whether it followed, distinguished or overruled it.
The Court's text
Paragraphs from our copy of the Supreme Court Reports print, with the Court's own paragraph numbers, the printed page and, where printed, the margin letter. The Court did not number this judgment's paragraphs, so they are listed by page. Link to paragraph N with #para-N.
Notification under Section 36 of the Punjab Town Improvement Act, 1922 was published on September 14, 1975 acquiring an extent of 124 kanals 3 marlas of the land in Kapurthala Town for Kapurthala Develop-men! Scheme No. 2. Notification under Section 42 of the Act was published on August 6, 1976. The Collector in his award dated October 12, 1976 classified the lands into three belts 'A', 'B' and 'C' and granted compensation @ Rs. 300, Rs 360 and Rs. 210 per maria respectively. On reference under Section 18, the Tribunal by its award dated April 16, 1981 awarded uniform rate of compensation at Rs. 540 per maria. When writ petitions came to be filled under Article 226, the Division Bench of the High Court by its common order on February 23, 1982 dismissed them. Thus these. appeals by special leave.
p. 613, margin B
Shri S.K. Mehta, learned counsel appearing for the Kapurthala Improvement Trust, contended that having rejected all the sale transactions, the Tribunal was not justified in awarding uniform market rate since the Collector made belting and that different rates were awarded by the Collector. We have seen the plan which would indicate that the lands are situated in a triangle bounded by roads on all the three sides. The lands are situated in developed area. In our considered opinion, the Tribunal had not committed any error of law in determining the compensation for the acquired land. Therefore, the appeals of the Improvement Trust as well as of the claimant~ for further enhancement stand <lisn1isscd. No costs. R.P. Appeals dismissed.
p. 613, margin D