The High Court dismissed eight connected writ petitions challenging land acquisition notifications, holding them tenable bar by a prior order in a similar case that found no discrimination and compliance with the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
The writ petitions were dismissed in terms of the earlier order in CWP No. 2254 of 1990.
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.
CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 3784 OF 1990
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.
DATE OF DECISION: March 18, 2011.
Parties Name
Partap Singh
...PETITIONER
VERSUS
State of Haryana and another
...RESPONDENTS
CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jasbir Singh Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rakesh Kumar Garg
PRESENT: Mr. Alok Jain, Advocate, for the petitioner
Mr. Kamal Sehgal, Addl. A.G., Haryana
Jasbir Singh, J. (oral)
JUDGMENT
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.
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
CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 3784 OF 1990 -2-
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 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.
In view of above, these writ petitions are dismissed in terms of the order passed in CWP No. 2254 of 1990.
(Rakesh Kumar Garg) Judge
March 18, 2011. DKC
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the writ petitions challenging land acquisition notifications were maintainable given the earlier decision in connected writ petitions.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
CWP No. 2254 of 1990Referred¶21
CWP No. 2254 of 1990
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Partap Singh
State of Haryana
another
Jasbir Singh
Rakesh Kumar Garg
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
