Allowed

Mahender Singh and Anr. v. State of Haryana and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC8 Mar 2011CWP/23148/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

On a common question of law and facts with three other petitions, this Court quashed the notifications under Sections 4, 6, and 9 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The decision relied on a prior judgment where the State was found to have wrongly invoked Section 17 for similar land, denying the petitioner's right to file objections.

What did the court decide?

The writ petitions were allowed, similar to the judgment passed in Shri Satbir Singh, resulting in the quashing of the impugned notifications under the Land Acquisition Act.

Mahender Singh and Anr. Vs State of Haryana and Ors. — Land Acquisition | Punjab & Haryana HC (2011)

¶1

CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 22827 OF 2010

¶2

-1-

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

¶4

DATE OF DECISION: March 8, 2011.

Parties Name

Smt. Janki Devi

...PETITIONER

VERSUS

State of Haryana and others

¶10

...RESPONDENTS

¶11

CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jasbir Singh Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rakesh Kumar Garg

¶12

PRESENT: Mr. S.P.Chahar, Advocate, for the petitioner

¶13

Ms. Palika Monga, DAG, Haryana,

¶14

Mr. Gitish Bhardwaj, Adv., for respondents No. 3 and 5.

¶15

Jasbir Singh, J. (oral)

¶16

JUDGMENT

¶17

This order will dispose of four writ petitions, i.e., Civil Writ Petitions No. 22827, 21384, 23124 and 23148, all of the year 2010, as common question of law and facts is involved in all these cases. To dictate order, facts are being mentioned from CWP No. 22827 of 2010.

¶18

By filing this writ petition, the petitioner has impugned a notification issued under Section 4 read with Section 17 of the Land

¶19

CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 22827 OF 2010 -2-

¶20

Acquisition Act, 1894 (in short the Act) on November 14, 2008 (P-1) proposing to acquire a vast track of land including a small piece of land, owned by the petitioner. Further challenge has been laid to a declaration issued under Section 6 read with Section 17 of the Act on December 4, 2008 (P-2) and a notice issued under Section 9 of the Act on November 12, 2010 (P-3).

¶21

The land was acquired for a public purpose, namely, for Sector dividing roads in Sectors 10-12, 9A, 9-11, 8-2, 7-1 and 6 Part, Jhajjar. It is specific case of the petitioner that there was no need to invoke the provisions of Section 17 of the Act and deny right to the petitioner to file objections under Section 5-A of the Act, which right as per established is akin to a fundamental right. It is case of the petitioners that her land falls in Rectangle No. 145 Killa No. 26/2 (min), total measuring 808 Sq. yards. The above said Khasra number consists of 5 Kanals and 14 Marlas. Some part of it is also owned by one Shri Satbir Singh, whose share of land was also sought to be acquired by the above said notifications. It is mentioned by the petitioner that Shri Satbir Singh came to this Court challenging those notifications and vide order dated February 18, 2010, passed in CWP No. 10512 of 2009, it was held by this Court that the State has wrongly invoked the provisions of Section 17 of the Act for this acquisition. Accordingly, notifications under Sections 4 and 6 of the Act, which are also impugned in this case, were ordered to be quashed qua the petitioner in that case. Petitioner therein was also held entitled to costs of Rs. 10,000/-.

¶22

At the time of arguments, to claim relief, counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon judgment in the case of Shri Satbir

¶23

CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 22827 OF 2010 -3-

¶24

Singh case (supra). It is an admitted fact that land of said Shri Satbir Singh and petitioner in this case falls in the same Khasra number, i.e., 145//26/2 (min). If that is so, we feel that similar relief, which was granted to Satbir Singh, cannot be denied to the petitioners in this case. Counsel for the respondents have failed to show anything to the contrary and suggest as to why in this case also invocation of provisions of Section 17 of the Act be not quashed.

¶25

In view of facts, mentioned above, these writ petitions are allowed in the same terms as in judgment passed in the case of Satbir Singh (supra) except grant of costs.

¶26

( Jasbir Singh ) Judge

¶27

(Rakesh Kumar Garg) Judge

¶28

March 8, 2011. DKC

Mahender Singh and Anr. v. State of Haryana and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mahender Singh and Anr. 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

Martin&Harris Laboratories Ltd. and Anr. Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Khazani Devi and Ors. Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

M/S Ajs Buldr. Ltd. & Aner Vs State of Haryana & Ors.

Amarjit Singh and Others Vs State of Punjab and Others

Harpal and Ors. Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Ratna Ram and Ors. Vs State of Haryana etc.