Disposed

Jagram Singh v. State of Haryana and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC11 May 2010CWP/19670/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought direction to release land compensation. Court notes compensation disbursed to petitioner and other shareholders except one. No finding of injustice left. Petition disposed; order to pay remaining share within two weeks; petitioner granted leave to approach other forum.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner granted permission to avail any remedy in accordance with law at any other forum.

Jagram Singh Vs State of Haryana and Ors. — Land Acquisition | Punjab & Haryana HC (2010)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

¶2

CWP No. 19670 of 2009

¶3

Date of Decision: May 11, 2010

Jagram Singh

..Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana and others

¶8

...Respondents

¶9

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

¶10

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN

¶11

Present: Mr. Mohinder Singh Joshi, Advocate, for the petitioner.

¶12

Ms. Palika Monga, DAG, Haryana, for respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3.

¶13

To be referred to the Reporters or not?

¶14

Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

¶15

M.M. KUMAR, J.

¶16

The petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for issuance of direction to respondent Nos. 2 and 3 – The District Revenue Officer-cumLand Acquisition Collector, Fatehabad and the District Collector, Fatehabad respectively, to release the amount of compensation as per the order of apportionment dated 8.1.2007 (P-4).

¶17

On 20.4.2010, this Court has noticed that the petitioner along with respondent Nos. 4 to 10 are share holders in the land in dispute. They claimed compensation in respect of the land in their possession irrespective of their share. The official respondents even failed to disburse compensation to them to the extent of their share, which was considered to be wholly unjustified. Accordingly, the learned State had undertaken that the compensation in

¶18

CWP No. 19670 of 2009

¶19

¶20

accordance with the share of the petitioner and respondent Nos. 4 to 10 would be disbursed and compliance report was to be furnished to this Court.

¶21

In compliance of the aforesaid order, the learned State counsel has placed on record a letter dated 22.4.2010 stating that the amount of compensation as per the share of the petitioner and respondent Nos. 4 and 60 to 10 has been disbursed. However, the amount of compensation in respect of respondent No. 5 could not be disbursed as he was not available.

¶22

Taking into account the fact that the amount of compensation has been paid as per the share of the petitioner along with respondent Nos. 4 to 10 (except respondent No. 5), we do not find that the instant petition would survive. As far as the claim of respondent No. 5 is concerned, the same shall be paid to him within two weeks. The petitioner and other respondents are, however, granted permission to avail any remedy in accordance with law at any other forum.

¶23

The writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms.

¶24

(M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE

¶25

(JITENDRA CHAUHAN) May 11, 2010 JUDGE

¶26

Pkapoor

Jagram Singh v. State of Haryana and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jagram Singh 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Harbans Singh Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Krishan Kumar Vs Union of India and Ors.

Naresh Kumar Vs Union of India and Ors.

Ishwar Singh & Ors. Vs State of Haryana & Ors.

Kunti & Os Vs State of Haryana & Ors.

Darshan Pal Vs Union of India and Ors.