CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 6304 OF 1987 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. DATE OF DECISION: December 08 , 2010. Parties Name Nasib Singh ...PETITIONER. VERSUS State of Punjab and others ...RESPONDENTS CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jasbir Singh Hon'ble Mr. Justice Augustine George Masih PRESENT: Mr. D.S. Patwalia, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Manohar Lall, Addl. A.G., Punjab, Mr. A.S.Tung, Advocate, for respondent No. 2. JASBIR SINGH, J. (oral) JUDGMENT By filing this writ petition, petitioner prays that a writ of mandamus be issued to the respondents to assess and pay compensation to him for the land measuring 8932 Square yards. Further prayer is to enhance the amount of compensation awarded to the petitioner vide Award dated January 7, 1984 (P-1). In this writ petition, it is stated by counsel for the petitioner CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 6304 OF 1987 -2- that the petitioner is a co-sharer in land measuring 8932 Sq. yards falling in Khasra Nos. 366, 367, 359, 370, 372, 365, 371, 368 and 369 of Khatauni No. 291/286-364-365-284. It is contention of the petitioner that instead of making payment for the land upto his share, he has been released compensation only for 5021 Sq. yards. In this manner, loss has been caused to him. Further prayer of the petitioner is to enhance the amount of compensation awarded vide Award dated January 7, 1984. So far as enhancement in compensation amount is concerned, parties are in agreement that the case is squarely covered by a Division Bench judgment dated May 2, 2006, of this Court passed in CWP No. 1599 of 1986. If that is so, claim of the petitioner for enhancement of compensation amount stands satisfied and this writ petition, to that extent is disposed of in terms of ratio of judgment in CWP No. 1599 of 1986, delivered on May 02, 2006. Counsel for the respondent categorically states that excess amount of compensation of Rs. 1,40,388/- already stood paid to the petitioner. The above fact has been disputed by the petitioner. It is not possible for us to decide this controversy when exercising writ jurisdiction under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India. The matter may be better looked into by the Court, which has assessed the compensation amount vide award dated January 7, 1984 (P-1). Both the parties are in agreement that the matter to that extent be remanded to the Court below. In view of agreed stand taken by the parties, we dispose of this writ petition and remand the matter to verify the exact amount of compensation to be CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 6304 OF 1987 -3- paid to the petitioner, for adjudication to the District and Sessions Judge, Ludhiana, who shall either dispose of the matter himself or entrust it to some other competent officer. The parties are directed to appear before the District Judge at Ludhiana on January 12, 2011. A reasoned order be passed. Both the parties are permitted to lead evidence in the shape of revenue record to establish their claim. The Court shall then decide entitlement of the petitioner to get amount of compensation, if any. Shri Tung, who has put in appearance on behalf of respondent No. 3, states that the following writ petitions are covered by one or other judgment, passed by this Court. 1. CWP No. 1221 of 1986 2. CWP No. 2685 of 1987 3. CWP No. 8725 of 1987 4. CWP No. 7 of 1988 5. CWP No. 6 of 1988 6. CWP No. 5 of 1988 7. CWP No. 3 of 1988 8. CWP No. 4 of 1988 9. CWP No. 2 of 1988 10.CWP No. 2231 of 1988 11.CWP No. 2232 of 1988 12.CWP No. 11103 of 1988 13.CWP No. 5390 of 1991 Registry is directed to put up above said writ petitions on December 20, 2010, for hearing after getting appropriate orders from the Hon'ble Chief Justice. Counsel for the petitioners be also intimated of the date fixed. ( JASBIR SINGH ) JUDGE (AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH) JUDGE December 08 , 2010. DKC CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 6304 OF 1987 -4-