The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging land acquisition for delay in filing the challenge, relying on the Supreme Court's ratio in Swaran Lata.
The writ petition was dismissed as not maintainable due to delay in challenging the acquisition.
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
Civil Writ Petition No.1292 of 2011 Date of decision: 24.1.2011
Darshan Singh
…..Petitioner
versus
The State of Haryana and others
……Respondents
CORAM: Hon’ble Mr.Justice Jasbir Singh Hon’ble Mr.Justice Rakesh Kumar Garg
Present: Mr.Ashish Aggarwal, Advocate for the petitioner
Jasbir Singh, J. (Oral)
This writ petition has been filed with a prayer to quash a notification dated 3.1.2007 (P3), vide which, the land measuring more than 350 acres was ordered to be acquired, including about 25 kanal land owned by the petitioner. Further challenge has been made to a declaration, issued on 2.1.2008, showing an intention of the authorities to acquire some part of the above said land. Award was passed on 30.12.2009.
It is not in dispute that on objection filed by the petitioner under Section 5-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (in short, the Act), his constructed portion, situated in 1 kanals 1 marla of land was released from acquisition. In this writ petition, the petitioner prays that his cattle shed, which was not released from acquisition, (stating that the construction was of ‘C’ Grade), be also ordered to be released from acquisition.
2
Civil Writ Petition No.1292 of 2011
It is not in dispute that after release of the construction raised by the petitioner in 1 kanal 1 marla of land, notification under Section 6 of the Act was issued on 2.1.2008. Award was passed on 30.12.2009 In the meantime, the petitioner made no attempt to lay challenge to the proposed acquisition. In this writ petition, there is no challenge to the award passed. It is only contention of counsel for the petitioner that land has been released in favour of many others at different stages, including after issuance of notice under Section 9 of the Act.
Be that as it may, counsel for the petitioner has failed to show that the said land was not released in terms of the Policy dated 26.10.2007. No case of discrimination is also made out.
In view of delay in laying challenge to the acquisition of his land at the part of the petitioner, this writ petition, in view of ratio judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Swaran Lata etc. v. State of Haryana and others AIR 2010 Supreme Court 1664, is not maintainable.
Dismissed.
(Jasbir Singh) Judge 24.01.2011 (Rakesh Kumar Garg) gk Judge
3 issues framed by the court
Whether a writ petition challenging land acquisition is maintainable after significant delay in laying challenge at the appropriate stage.
Whether the petitioner had made any attempt to challenge the proposed acquisition before filing this writ petition.
Whether discrimination existed in the release of land to other petitioners compared to the petitioner.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Swaran Lata etc. v. State of Haryana and othersApplied¶17
Swaran Lata etc. v. State of Haryana and others AIR 2010 Supreme Court 1664 · Who else cites this
3 provisions across 1 enactments
Darshan Singh
The State of Haryana
Jasbir Singh
Rakesh Kumar Garg
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
