This petition challenges a land acquisition order. The bench held that since the parties had filed a substantially similar petition (CWP No.1096) which was dismissed, filing this second petition barred by res judicata and order rules.
The writ petitions were dismissed in limine without any substantive relief being granted.
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.10184 of 2013
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
| CWP No.10184 of 2013 Date of decision:13.05.2013 |
||
|---|---|---|
| Raghbir Singh & another | .....Petitioners | |
| Versus | ||
| State of Haryana & others | ......Respondents | |
| CWP No.10233 of 2013 Date of decision:13.05.2013 |
||
| Parveen Singh | .....Petitioner |
|
| Versus | ||
| State of Haryana & others | ......Respondents | |
| CWP No.10234 of 2013 Date of decision:13.05.2013 |
||
| Jeet Ram | .....Petitioner |
|
| Versus | ||
| State of Haryana & others | ......Respondents |
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE G.S.SANDHAWALIA
Present: Ms.Soni G.Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner.
G.S.Sandhawalia J.
2
CWP No.10184 of 2013
CWP No.9376 of 2004 whereby dispossession of the petitioners was stayed which remained operative till 03.08.2012. Further prayer has also been made for quashing the rapat rojnamcha dated 21.12.2004 wherein possession was allegedly taken and for a direction to respondent No.3 to proceed afresh under Section 11 of the Act as per order dated 01.07.2004.
3
CWP No.10184 of 2013
had granted liberty to the petitioners to agitate the matter afresh and thus, the petitioners had preferred CWP No.1096 of 2013. Reference was also made to the fact that the petitioners were suffering since their land had earlier been acquired in 1988 and the respondents provided no alternative accommodation as oustees. Accordingly, it is pleaded that the father of the petitioners, Siri Ram and his brother, Jeet Ram, uncle of the petitioners had constructed their houses over the land much before the issuance of Section 4 notification which covered 3 bighas, whereas in the case of their cousins, it was 3 bighas 15 biswas and in the case of Hawa Singh(cousin), 2 bighas 10 biswas and they lived in adjoining houses. Respondent No.4 proceeded to record the orders dated 06.05.2008 and 03.08.2012 without taking into consideration the policy of the Government (Annexure P-1 & P-2).
4
CWP No.10184 of 2013
measuring 2 bighas was not released since the said constructed portion was being used for cattle shed and fodder store which would amount to being a nonconfirming use in a residential sector. Similarly, in the case of Hawa Singh S/o Jeeta Ram, it was noticed that 605 square yards land had been taken out of the acquisition proceedings which included constructed area of 298.33 square yards. Similarly, in the case of Praveen Singh, area measuring 605 square yards land which included constructed area of 255.29 square yards had been excluded from acquisition proceedings which was double the area with the residential house and the proportionate area had been given qua the constructed area. The poultry farm area, being non-confirming, could not be considered for release. This was done in pursuance of the order passed by this Court on 09.09.2008 in a bunch of matters filed which included CWP No.9376 of 2004 filed by the petitioners.
5
CWP No.10184 of 2013
urban growth. The constructed portions of the house which are put to nonconfirming use would have to give way in the larger interest of the society for the development of the area for residential purposes.
(G.S.SANDHAWALIA) JUDGE
13.05.2013 sailesh
(AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) JUDGE
3 issues framed by the court
Whether a second writ petition filed on the same cause of action after dismissal of an earlier petition can be entertained.
Whether a larger claim for release of land including non-residential structures is permissible after partial release in an earlier order.
Whether the principles of res judicata and Order 2 Rule 2 CPC apply when a petitioner files a fresh petition raising similar grievances.
3 provisions across 1 enactments
Raghbir Singh
Parveen Singh
Jeet Ram
State of Haryana
G.S. Sandhawalia
Ajay Kumar Mittal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
