Writ petition challenging land acquisition notifications dismissed. Court held petitioner had no subsisting right post-notification and sale, noting failure to challenge promptly implied acquiescence.
The writ petition is dismissed as it lacks merit.
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.10735 of 2013
1
THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CWP No.10735 of 2013
Date of decision: 22.05.2013
Ram Singh
-----Petitioner
Vs.
State of Haryana and others
----Respondents
CORAM:HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURMEET SINGH SANDHAWALIA
Present:Mr. Jasmer Singh, Advocate for Mr. Vikram Singh, Advocate for the petitioner.
Ajay Kumar Mittal,J .
CWP No.10735 of 2013
2
172 kanals 6 marlas situated within the revenue limits at Kharya, Tehsil and District Mohindergarh. The petitioner was owner of total land measuring 43 kanals approximately, as per Jamabandi for the year 2006-07, Annexure P.1. Notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued on 23.2.2007, Annexure P.2 followed by notification under Section 6 of the Act on 20.3.2008, Annexure P.3. The land of the petitioner was acquired for the development and utilization of land for residential, commercial, institutional, Sector roads and green Belt, Sector 10, Mohindergarh. Respondent No.4 - M/s Sun Colonizers Pvt. Limited, 11 Number Second Floor, Ansal Building, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi purchased the land from the petitioner and got transferred the same in its favour vide sale deed dated 31.10.2008, Annexure P.4. Thereafter, the said land was released in favour of respondent No.4. The petitioner was under the impression that the land had been acquired for the purpose mentioned in the notification. When he came to know that respondent No.4 was raising construction over the land in dispute, he sent legal notice dated 17.4.2012, Annexure P.6. Having received no response, the petitioner is before this court through the instant writ petition.
CWP No.10735 of 2013
3
same is dismissed.
(Ajay Kumar Mittal) Judge May 22, 2013 (Gurmeet Singh Sandhawalia) 'gs' Judge
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the quashing of notifications under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 is maintainable where a sale deed was executed post-notification.
Whether the petitioner is barred by acquisition and subsequent sale from challenging the notifications via writ petition.
Whether the delay in approaching the court amounts to acquiescence.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Ram Singh
State of Haryana
Ajay Kumar Mittal
Gurmeet Singh Sandhawalia
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
