Petitioner challenged land acquisition notifications asserting existence of shops and services on the land. The Court held that since similarly situated owners were not exempted, the petition was without merit and dismissed.
Writ petition dismissed; acquisition proceedings continued as petitioner's objection was rejected.
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.
CWP No. 24505 of 2011
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CWP No. 24505 of 2011 Date of decision: 22.3.2012
Karam Singh
.....Petitioner
vs.
The State of Haryana and ors
....Respondents
CORAM: -HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N.JINDAL
Present: - Mr. Vikram Singh, Advocate for the petitioners.
Ms. Palika Monga, DAG, Haryana for respondents No. 1 and 2.
Mr. Surender Dhull, Advocate for respondent No. 3.
Hemant Gupta, J
Challenge in the present petition is to the notifications dated 23.8.2007 (Annexure P-2) and 21.8.2008 (Annexure P-6) issued under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for acquiring the land of the petitioner measuring 105.56 acres for development of residential ad commercial area of Sector 6, Tehsil Safidon, District Jind.
The said land includes the land measuring 7 kanal 3 marlas of the petitioner situated in the said village. Petitioner alleges that there are six shops, service station and a smadh and therefore, the said land should not be part of the acquisition process. Such is the objection filed by the petitioner under Section 5-A of the Act.
CWP No. 24505 of 2011
-2-
In the written statement filed, it is averred that the land of the petitioner, subject matter of acquisition, falls in green belt area of the proposed sector and the acquisition proceedings regarding this land was not withdrawn in respect of any of the land owners. It is pointed out that the land of the other similarly situated persons has not been left from acquisition proceedings.
Since, the land of the petitioner falls in the green belt and the land of none of the similarly situated petitioner has been released from acquisition, therefore, we do not find any case is made out to dispute the acquisition of land.
Dismissed.
(HEMANT GUPTA)
JUDGE
(A.N.JINDAL) JUDGE
22.3.2012 preeti
2 issues framed by the court
Whether acquisition of petitioner's land falling in green belt area could be disputed by petitioner.
Whether acquisition proceedings against similarly situated owners were withdrawn.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Karam Singh
The State of Haryana
Hemant Gupta
A.N. Jindal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
