Dismissed

Shakuntla Devi and Ors. v. State of Haryana and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC13 Nov 2006CWP/6007/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners challenged notifications under the Land Acquisition Act for an Industrial Estate, alleging procedural impropriety and A-class construction status. The court dismissed the writ petition as the award was passed, compensation was received, and the land vested with the state, rendering it free from encumbrances.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is dismissed, holding that the land has vested in the state after the award and payment of compensation.

Shakuntla Devi and Ors. Vs State of Haryana and Ors. — Land Acquisition | Punjab & Haryana HC (2006)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

CASE NO.: CWP No.6007 of 2004

¶3

DATE OF DECISION: November 13, 2006

¶4

SHAKUNTLA DEVI & ORS.

¶5

...PETITIONERS

¶6

VERSUS

¶7

STATE OF HARYANA & OTHERS

¶8

...RESPONDENTS

¶9

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA. HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE NIRMAL YADAV.

¶10

PRESENT: MS. SEEMA NARANG, ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONERS. MR. R.S. KUNDU, ADDL.A.G., HARYANA.

¶11

ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA, J. (ORAL)

¶12

The petitioners have prayed for quashing the notifications dated 21.11.2002 and 4.11.2003 issued under Section 4 & 6 of the Land Acquisition Act (for short 'the Act'), respectively. The land has been acquired vide the aforementioned notifications for the public purpose, namely, for development of Industrial Estate, Phase-II, Sonepat. It has been prayed in the writ petition that proper procedure was not followed while disposing of the objections under Section 5-A of the Act. It has further been argued that construction raised by the petitioners is A-class and therefore, the land of the petitioners cannot be acquired. It is further contended that even the Land Acquisition Collector had recommended that the land of the petitioners be released from acquisition.

¶13

Reply has been filed on behalf of respondent No.5 wherein it has been averred that in pursuance to issuance of notifications acquiring the land of the petitioners, award has been passed on 3.11.2004 and the petitioners have already received the compensation not only of the land but

¶14

CWP No.6007 of 2004

¶15

-2-

¶16

also of the super structures. It is further been stated in the written statement that the petitioners have also filed reference petition under Section 18 of the Act.

¶17

In view of the fact that the award has already been passed in the present case and that the petitioners have also received compensation of the land in dispute and the super structures from the Land Acquisition Collector vide Cheque No.758663 dated 19.1.2005 amounting to Rs.23,26,786/-, Cheque No.358664 dated 19.1.2005 amounting to Rs.17,03,599/- and Cheque No.758626 dated 15.12.2004 amounting to Rs.14,18,950/- as well as the fact that the petitioners have already preferred a reference petition before the Court of District Judge, therefore, the land of the petitioners is free from all incumbrances and has vested in the state.

¶18

In view of the above, the writ petition is dismissed.

¶19

(ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA) JUDGE

¶20

November 13, 2006 (NIRMAL YADAV) Gulati JUDGE

Shakuntla Devi and Ors. v. State of Haryana and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shakuntla Devi and Ors. v. State of Haryana and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kamla Devi and Anr. Vs State of Hry. etc.

Fatehjit Singh and Others Vs Director Land Record and Others

Gram Panchayat Vs Joint Development Commissioner and Ors.

Kundan Singh Vs State of Pb.

Sumer Singh etc. Vs State of Haryana Etc\

Gandharav Singh Vs State of Pb. etc.