The Delhi High Court dismissed a writ petition seeking stay on land acquisition proceedings, holding that the case was covered by a prior judgment in Sunil Goel which settled the legal position regarding stay orders in similar acquisition matters.
The writ petition was allowed on the same terms as the earlier judgment in Sunil Goel.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
$~20
..... Petitioners
Through Mr Rajiv K. Garg with Mr Ashish Garg, Mr Sanjay Gupta and Ms Kavita Rawat, Advocates.
versus
STATE THROUGH LT. GOVERNOR & ORS. ..... Respondents Through Mr Yeeshu Jain with Ms Jyoti Tyagi, Advocates for respondent No.2. Mr Ajay Verma with Ms Kirti Parmar and Mr Vaibhav Mishra, Advocates for respondent No.3.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA O R D E R % 03.03.2016
that if there was a stay in one matter pursuant to the same acquisition, it would enure to the benefit of the land acquiring agency in all matters covered by the said acquisition. This matter was specifically raised and considered in the judgment dated 29.04.2014, in Sunil Goel & Ors. v. The State & Ors. ; W.P.(C) No.3049/2013 . More particularly, it is mentioned in paragraph 17 of the said judgment and the argument has been repelled in paragraph 20 thereof. Mr Verma sought to raise the issue of the pendency of the Special Leave Petition being Velaxan Kumar v. Union of India and Others being SLP(C) 16578/2007 , which
was pending before the Supreme Court and a stay order was operating therein. This very point has been considered by this Court in paragraph 20 of the said
judgment and, therefore, this plea cannot be accepted.
decision in Sunil Goel (supra) and is, accordingly, allowed on the same terms.
BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J
MARCH 03, 2016 st
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the present case sought stay in an acquisition warrant disputing the legal effects of a prior stay order
Whether the pendency of a separate Supreme Court stay matters in the instant writ petition
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Sunil Goel & Ors. v. The State & Ors.Followed¶12
Sunil Goel & Ors. v. The State & Ors.; W.P.(C) No.3049/2013
Velaxan Kumar v. Union of India and OthersReferred¶12
Velaxan Kumar v. Union of India and Others; SLP(C) 16578/2007
Rajinder Singh & Anr.
State Through Lt. Governor & Ors.
Badar Durrez Ahmed
Sanjeev Sachdeva
As recorded by the court registry
A petition under Article 226 of the Constitution asking a High Court to issue a writ against the State or a public authority in a civil matter.
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
