Partly allowed

Krishna Devi and Ors. v. State of Hry. and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC26 Nov 2008CWP/14769/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners challenged notifications for land acquisition of their residential plots. The court found that structured area was exempted for one petitioner but rejected claims of others as not covered by State Policy. Petition disposed with partial relief.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners, excluding Petitioner No.1's claim of exempted constructed area, rejected; Writ petition disposed.

Krishna Devi and Ors. Vs State of Hry. and Ors. — Land Acquisition | Punjab & Haryana HC (2008)

¶1

C.W.P.No. 14769 of 2006.

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

¶4

C.W.P.No. 14769 of 2006. Date of Decision : 26.11.2008.

¶5

Smt. Krishna Devi and others

¶6

Petitioner.

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

State of Haryana and others.

¶9

Respondents.

¶10

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.KUMAR. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JORA SINGH.

¶11

Present:- Mr. Shailendra Jain, Advocate, for the petitioner(s).

¶12

Ms. Palika Monga, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana.

¶13

Mr. R.S.Longia, Advocate, for Mr. Arun Walia, Advocate, for HUDA.

¶14

1.Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment?

¶15

To be referred to the Reporters or not ?

¶16

Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest?

¶17

M.M.KUMAR,J.

¶18

The petitioners have approached this Court with a prayer for quashing notifications issued under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 on 14..8.2003 and 10.8.2004 respectively (Annexures P-9 and P-14) acquiring the residential plot of the petitioners over which they have built a house.

¶19

When the matter came up for consideration on 2.7.2008 it was stated by the petitioners that first survey has been carried out by the Director, Town and Country Planning, Haryana and the report was not available.

¶20

¶21

C.W.P.No. 14769 of 2006.

¶22

Accordingly, this court directed the learned State Counsel to get hold of the record to show whether land/house of the petitioners is still required for acquisition. Thereafter on 5.11.2008 an additional affidavit dated 26.9.2008 by the Special Secretary Urban Estate Department was handed over to the counsel for the petitioners in the Court on 5.11.2008.

¶23

The matter came up for hearing when it was stated by the learned counsel for the parties that Director has passed an order dated 26.9.2008 stating that names of the petitioner appear at Serial No.11 of list A which include the name of those persons who have structure/residential houses over the land in dispute. Petitioner No.1 has been granted benefit of release of constructed area measuring 130.66 square meter whereas other petitioners have not been found to have any structure on the land in dispute. The area of petitioner No.1 measuring 130.66 square meter along with vacant proportionate area which would be equivalent to the released area has been exempted from acquisition. This satisfies the claim of the petitioner No.1. The claim of rest of the petitioner cannot be accepted as it is not covered by the State Policy from excluding the built up area providing for acquisition. Accordingly, their claim is rejected.

¶24

Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of.

¶25

(M.M.KUMAR ) JUDGE

¶26

26.11.2008 Anoop

¶27

( JORA SINGH) JUDGE

Krishna Devi and Ors. v. State of Hry. and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Krishna Devi and Ors. v. State of Hry. 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

Bhushan Gupta Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Veena Gupta Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Bhushan Gupta Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Jot Ram and Ors. Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

M/S Dharampal Khurana and Sons and Ors. Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Tk Ram and Another Vs State of Haryana and Others