This court dismissed a Writ Petition challenging a notification and declaration under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, by relying on its own prior judgment delivered on 6.4.2010 in similar cases involving identical factual positions and legal challenges.
The instant petition is dismissed in terms of the judgment dated 6.4.2010.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.
CWP No. 20019 of 2009 Date of Decision: May 12, 2010
Rewati Raman and others
…Petitioners
Versus
State of Haryana and others
…Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN
Present: Mr. Sanjiv Bansal, Advocate, for the petitioners.
Mr. Kamal Sehgal, Addl. AG, Haryana, for the respondents.
M.M. KUMAR, J.
This petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution challenges notification dated 26.9.2007 (P-1), issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for brevity, ‘the Act’) and declaration dated 25.9.2008 (P-3), made under Section 6 of the Act.
It is conceded position that the issue raised in the instant petition has already been answered by us against the petitioners vide our judgment dated 6.4.2010 rendered in the cases of Ravinder Singh v. State of Haryana and others (CWP No. 6155 of 2010) and Buli and others v. State of Haryana and others (CWP No. 6205 of 2010) wherein same notifications dated 26.9.2007 (P-1) and 25.9.2008 (P-3) were subject matter of challenge. Even the factual position is not different in the instant petition. Accordingly, following the same reasoning, we dismiss the instant petition in terms of our judgment dated 6.4.2010 rendered in the aforementioned cases.
(M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE
(JITENDRA CHAUHAN) JUDGE
Pkapoor
May 12, 2010
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the Land Acquisition notification should be allowed?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Ravinder Singh v. State of Haryana and othersFollowed¶15
Ravinder Singh v. State of Haryana and others (CWP No. 6155 of 2010)
Buli and others v. State of Haryana and othersFollowed¶15
Buli and others v. State of Haryana and others (CWP No. 6205 of 2010)
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Rewati Raman and others
State of Haryana and others
M.M. Kumar
Jitendra Chauhan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
