Allowed

Sushil Kumar v. State of Haryana and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC14 Jan 2010CWP/30/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a writ petition challenging land acquisition notifications for violating Section 6 proviso(ii) of the Land Acquisition Act by being issued over a year after the Section 4 notification, thereby prejudicing the petitioner's right to compensation based on current values. The court applied the terms of a prior order allowing the petition but mandating refund of compensation rece

What did the court decide?

Police notification and declaration under Section 6 dated 06.05.2004 quashed, subject to terms of previous order regarding refund of compensation with interest.

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

¶1

CWP No.30 of 2010

¶2

-1-

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

CWP No.30 of 2010 Decided on : 14.01.2010

Sushil Kumar

... Petitioner

versus

State of Haryana & others

¶9

...Respondents

¶10

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

¶11

Present : Mr. Vivek Goyal, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶12

Ms. Palika Monga, DAG, Haryana for respondents.

¶13

¶14

1.Whether Reporters of local newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment?

¶15

2.To be referred to the reporters or not?

¶16

3.Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

¶17

M.M.Kumar, J.

¶18

It is conceded by the learned state counsel by

¶19

referring to letter dated 13.01.2010, wherein Land Acquisition Officer, Urban Estate, Panchkula has submitted that the subject matter of this petition pertains to the same notifications which were challenged in CWP No.10570 of 2006 titled as Hari Dass Dutt & others vs. State of Haryana & others and other bunch of petitions. Those notifications were quashed by this Court in the judgement dated 18.02.2008 (Annexure P-4). A copy of this letter is taken on record as Mark 'A'.

¶20

CWP No.30 of 2010

¶21

-2-

¶22

In respect of the judgment dated 18.02.2008, it is significant to notice that a Division Bench of this Court of which one of us (M.M.Kumar, J.) was member, had allowed the bunch of petitions. It was held that notification under Section 6 of the Act had been issued after expiry of more than one year which violated Section 6 proviso(ii) of the Act. It went on to observe:

¶23

“In the present case notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued on 23.05.2001 (Annexure P-2) and notification under Section 6 read with Section 17 of the Act was issued a day later on 24.05.2001 (Annexure P-3). The petitioner filed CWP No.13391 of 2001. The Division Bench vide its order dated 08.07.2002 (Annexure P-6) set aside the invoking of urgency provisions and declaration issued under Section 6 read with Section 17 of the Act. As a consequence the petitioners were given the right to file objections under Section 5-A of the Act. They filed objections which were accordingly decided on 06.09.2002. Thereafter, declaration under Section 6 of the Act has been issued on 06.05.2004 which apparently is far beyond the period of one year from the date of notification issued under Section 4 of the Act. By no stretch of imagination the declaration issued on 06.05.2004 (Annexure P-8) under Section 6 of the Act could stand judicial scrutiny. The right of the petitioners would be prejudiced because they would get the price of the land assessed on the date when notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued on 23.05.2001 whereas the petitioners would be entitled to the assessment of their land from the proceedings to the issuance of declaration under Section 6 of the Act which is this case would be

¶24

CWP No.30 of 2010

¶25

-3-

¶26

06.05.2003. Likewise, the amount of interest and solatium would also adversely affect the interest of the petitioners whose land has been acquired. There is thus, flagrant violation of the provision of Section 6 proviso(ii) of the Act. Notification under Section 6 dated 23.05.2001(Annexure P-3) and declaration under Section 6 of the Act dated 06.05.2004 (Anneuxre P-8) are liable to be quashed.”

¶27

Thereafter in respect of same notifications another petition CWP No.18225 of 2008 was also filed where another Division Bench, of which one of us (M.M.Kumar, J.) was member, had followed the earlier view and quashed the notifications vide order dated 25.11.2008 (Annexure P-7). However, a condition was added that the petitioners have to refund the amount of compensation received by those petitions alongwith statutory interest at the rate of 9% interest for the first year and 15% thereafter. In view of the aforesaid factual situation, this writ petition is allowed in the same terms as in CWP No.10570 of 2006 decided on 18.02.2008. However, the petitioner shall remain bound by the terms and conditions of order dated 25.11.2008 (Annexure P-7).

¶28

( M.M.KUMAR) JUDGE

¶29

(AJAY TEWARI) JUDGE

¶30

January 14, 2010 sonia

Sushil Kumar v. State of Haryana and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sushil Kumar 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dariya Vs Balwan and Ors.

Kirpal Singh and Anr. Vs Virender Singh

Lakshmi Chand and Others Vs Ganga Devi and Others

Dilbagh Singh Vs Milkha Singh and Ors.

Ujagar Singh Vs Daljity Singh and Ors.

Bant Singh Vs Mukhtiar Singh