The High Court dismissed the writ petitions as they involved common questions of law and facts already decided in a connected matter (CWP No. 2254 of 1990), where notifications under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act were held valid.
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.
-1-
CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 3596 OF 1990
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.
DATE OF DECISION: March 17, 2011.
Parties Name
Daleep Singh
...PETITIONER
VERSUS
The State of Haryana and another
...RESPONDENTS
CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jasbir Singh Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rakesh Kumar Garg
PRESENT: Mr. Sudhir Aggarwal, Advocate, Advocate, for the petitioner
Mr. C.M. Munjal, Advocate, for the petitioner in CWP No. 3726 of 1990.
Mr. Kamal Sehgal, Addl. A.G., Haryana, for the respondents.
Mr. Kamal Sharma, Advocate, for HUDA in CWP No.3726 of 1990.
Jasbir Singh, J. (oral)
JUDGMENT
This order will dispose of eight writ petitions, i.e., Civil Writ Petitions No. 3596, 3726, 3747, 3760, 3816, 4062, 4063, 3724 and 5889, all of the year 1990, as common question of law and facts is involved in all these cases. For facility of dictating order, facts are being mentioned in
CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 3596 OF 1990
-2-
CWP No. 3596 of 1990.
Vide order dated March 16, 2011, this Court dismissed civil writ petitions No. 2254, 2946, 2975, 2976 and 3003, all of the year 1990, in which notifications, which are impugned in these writ petitions, were under challenge. By noting facts on the file, this Court came to a conclusion that no case of discrimination was made out and further that notifications under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, dated January 30, 1989 and January 25, 1990, respectively and Award passed on January 22, 1992, were as per provisions of the Act.
Counsel for the respondents states that these writ petitions are to be dismissed in terms of the order dated March 16, 2011, passed by this Court in CWP No. 2254 of 1990 and other four connected matters. After hearing counsel for the parties and perusing the judgment, mentioned above, we are satisfied that the averment made is perfectly justified. Counsel for the petitioner has failed to distinguish the facts of this case from the facts of the case, which was disposed of on March 16, 2011 (C.W.P. No. 2254 of 1990).
In view of above, these writ petitions are dismissed in terms of an order passed in CWP No. 2254 of 1990.
March 17 , 2011. DKC
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Daleep Singh
The State of Haryana
Jasbir Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
