Dismissed

Chhatter Singh v. State of Haryana

Punjab & Haryana HC18 Mar 2011CWP/3786/1990

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order dismissed eight connected writ petitions challenging notifications and an award under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The Court held that no case of discrimination was made out and disposed of the matters in line with a previous order dated March 16, 2011.

What did the court decide?

The writ petitions were dismissed by observing that the contention raised was perfectly justified and the case could not be distinguished from facts in connected petitions.

Chhatter Singh Vs State of Haryana — Land Acquisition | Punjab & Haryana HC (2011)

¶1

CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 3784 OF 1990

¶2

-1-

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

¶4

DATE OF DECISION: March 18, 2011.

Parties Name

Partap Singh

...PETITIONER

VERSUS

State of Haryana and another

¶10

...RESPONDENTS

¶11

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

¶12

PRESENT: Mr. Alok Jain, Advocate, for the petitioner

¶13

Mr. Kamal Sehgal, Addl. A.G., Haryana

¶14

Jasbir Singh, J. (oral)

¶15

JUDGMENT

¶16

This order will dispose of eight writ petitions, i.e., Civil Writ Petitions No. 3784, 3785, 3786, 3798, 3850, 3863, 3983 and 4255, all of the year 1990, as common question of law and facts is involved in all these cases. For facility of dictating judgment, facts are being mentioned in CWP No. 3784 of 1990.

¶17

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

¶18

CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 3784 OF 1990 -2-

¶19

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.

¶20

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 contention raised is perfectly justified. Counsel for the petitioner has failed to distinguish this case from the facts of the cases, which were involved in C.W.P. No. 2254 of 1990 and other four connected petitions.

¶21

In view of above, these writ petitions are dismissed in terms of the order passed in CWP No. 2254 of 1990.

¶22

(Rakesh Kumar Garg) Judge

¶23

March 18, 2011. DKC

Chhatter Singh v. State of Haryana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chhatter Singh v. State of Haryana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dalip Singh Vs State of Haryana

Roopwati Vs State of Haryana

Manmohan Singh Vs State of Haryana

Gurmukh Singh Vs State of Punjab and Others

Surat Singh Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Vijai Singh Vs State of Haryana & Ors.