Dismissed

Likhi Ram v. Suresh Kumar

Punjab & Haryana HC21 May 2012COCP/13/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The bench disposed of multiple contempt petitions arising from delays in land acquisition compensation. After reviewing affidavits confirming payment in listed cases, the court discharged the rules and directed authorities to ensure future compensation is released within one month.

What did the court decide?

The orders were dismissed with directions to ensure all future compensation applications are forwarded for release within one month.

Likhi Ram Vs Suresh Kumar — Land Acquisition | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH

¶2

Date of Decision : May 21, 2012 1. COCP No.13 of 2012 (O & M)

¶3

Likhi Ram

¶4

..... PETITIONER(S)

¶5

VERSUS Suresh Kumar, Land Acquisition Collector, Faridabad ..... RESPONDENT(S) . . . 2. COCP No.48 of 2012 (O & M) Dayawati & others ..... PETITIONER(S) VERSUS Suresh Kumar, Land Acquisition Collector, Faridabad ..... RESPONDENT(S) . . . 3. COCP No.183 of 2012 (O & M) Satyawati ..... PETITIONER(S) VERSUS Suresh Kumar, Land Acquisition Collector, Faridabad & another ..... RESPONDENT(S) . . .

¶6

COCP No.13 of 2012 [2]

¶7

COCP No.212 of 2012 (O & M) Inder Singh & others ..... PETITIONER(S) VERSUS Suresh Kumar, Land Acquisition Collector, Faridabad ..... RESPONDENT(S) . . . 5. COCP No.306 of 2012 Dharambir & another ..... PETITIONER(S) VERSUS O.P. Godara, Land Acquisition Collector, Faridabad ..... RESPONDENT(S) . . . 6. COCP No.314 of 2012 (O & M) Anandi & others ..... PETITIONER(S) VERSUS O.P. Godara, Land Acquisition Collector, Faridabad ..... RESPONDENT(S)

¶8

. . .

¶9

COCP No.13 of 2012 [3]

¶10

COCP No.326 of 2012 (O & M) Arjun & others ..... PETITIONER(S)

¶11

VERSUS Suresh Kumar Singhal, Land Acquisition Officer, Faridabad

¶12

..... RESPONDENT(S)

¶13

. . . 8. COCP No.376 of 2012 (O & M) Ram Singh & others ..... PETITIONER(S) VERSUS Suresh Kumar Singhal, Land Acquisition Officer, Faridabad ..... RESPONDENT(S) . . . 9. COCP No.422 of 2012 (O & M) Ram Singh & others ..... PETITIONER(S) VERSUS Suresh Kumar, Land Acquisition Collector, Faridabad

¶14

..... RESPONDENT(S)

¶15

. . .

¶16

COCP No.13 of 2012 [4]

¶17

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT

¶18

. . .

¶19

Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

¶20

To be referred to the Reporters or not?

¶21

Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

¶22

. . .

¶23

PRESENT: - Mr. Surinder Dagar, Advocate; Mr. R.N. Singal, Advocate; Mr. Adish Gupta, Advocate; and Ms. Vandana, Advocate, for Mr. Rajesh Lamba, Advocate, for the petitioner(s).

¶24

Mr. Rajiv Kawetra, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Haryana.

¶25

Mr. Raman Gaur, Advocate.

¶26

. . .

¶27

Surya Kant, J (Oral)

¶28

This order shall dispose of COCP Nos.13, 48, 183, 212, 306, 314, 326, 376 and 422 of 2012 as common questions of law are involved in these contempt petitions.

¶29

In deference to order dated 17.4.2012, Ms. Amneet P. Kumar, IAS (the then Administrator, HUDA, Faridabad); Mr. Rajender Kumar Gahlot, Land Acquisition Officer, Faridabad; and Mr. Arvind Malhan (the then Land Acquisition Officer, Faridabad) are present in Court.

¶30

The Land Acquisition Collector, Urban Estate, Faridabad has filed an affidavit in terms of the above mentioned

¶31

COCP No.13 of 2012 [5]

¶32

order dated 17.4.2012 alongwith List Annexure A-1 explaining that due amount of compensation has been deposited in the bank account(s) of the land owners except in 13 cases in relation to which reasons have been assigned in Remarks column.

¶33

It is explained by the then Administrator, HUDA that there was no delay in the release of payment on the part of the HUDA authorities and compensation amount was sent to the Land Acquisition Collector as soon as the claims of land owners were received.

¶34

The above stated plea appears to be correct from the dates mentioned in Annexure A-1 in a tabulated form.

¶35

As regards the delay in forwarding the application (s) received from the Decree Holders/ land owners, the Land Acquisition Officer assures and undertakes that henceforth the applications received from the land owners/ Decree Holders, complete in all respects, shall be forwarded to HUDA authorities for . the release of compensation amount within a period of one month Similarly, the HUDA authorities shall deposit the due amount as . early as possible but not later than one month

¶36

It is stated that compensation amount has been paid in all the cases listed today which are being disposed of by this common order.

¶37

COCP No.13 of 2012 [6]

¶38

These contempt petitions are accordingly disposed

¶39

of with the above mentioned clarificatory direction(s).

¶40

Rule discharged.

¶41

(Surya Kant) May 21, 2012 Judge avin

Likhi Ram v. Suresh Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Likhi Ram v. Suresh Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Charanjit Singh Vs Alak Nanda Dayal and Ors.

Swaran Kaur Vs Sanjeev Khanna

Subash Bhatia Vs Sanjeev Khanna and Anr.

Sham Lal Vs Ajay Kumar and Anr.

J.S.Gill Vs Mohinder Khurana

Surinder Kumar Vs M.L.Puri and Ors.