Dismissed

Malho Devi v. State of Haryana and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC3 Dec 2013CWP/15370/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged notifications under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, regarding acquisition of her Bawal land. Court held that since the land was later released to the petitioner, the petition became infructuous. Writ was disposed of with notifications set aside.

What did the court decide?

Notifications dated 08.06.2007 and 27.02.2008 were set aside qua the petitioner's property measuring 1 kanal 14 marlas.

Malho Devi Vs State of Haryana and Ors. — Land Acquisition | Punjab & Haryana HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

Civil Writ Petition No.15370 of 2008 Date of Decision: December 03, 2013

Malho Devi

.....Petitioner

versus

The State of Haryana and others

¶7

.....Respondents

¶8

CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURINDER GUPTA.

¶9

Present : Mr.Jagbir Malik, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.S.S.Patter, Senior DAG, Haryana. Mr.Dhiraj Chawla, Advocate, for HSIDC.

¶10

-.-

¶11

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

¶12

2.To be referred to the Reporters or not?

¶13

3.Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

¶14

¶15

Surya Kant, J. (Oral)

¶16

The petitioner impugns the notifications dated 08.06.2007 (Annexure P-14) and 27.02.2008 (Annexure P-18) issued under Sections 4 & 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, respectively, to the extent of acquisition of her land measuring 1 kanal 14 marlas situated within the municipal limits of Bawal, District Rewari.

¶17

Learned State counsel has filed its reply-affidavit dated 4.3.2009, paragraph 8 whereof reads as follows:

¶18

“....8. That it is further submitted that the land of the petitioner bearing Rectangle No.72, Kila No.27/2/1/4/2/1, measuring 03 kanal 02 marla, situated in the Municipal limits of Bawal was part of the Section 4 Notification in this acquisition. Of this, land measuring 01

¶19

Kumar Mohinder 2014.01.10 15:22 I attest to the accuracy of this order Chandigarh

¶20

CWP No.15370 of 2008

¶21

[2]

¶22

kanal 14 marla was notified under Section 6 after considering the objections filed under Section 5-A of the Act. Subsequently, this land also forms part of the land released under Section 48 of the Act as it falls within the residential zone of Municipal Limits of Bawal (South-West of the railway line). Hence, the petitioner has no cause of continued grievance on this account......”

¶23

In view of the fact that the respondents have released the acquired land/property of the petitioner, this writ petition, in a way, has become infructuous. The same is accordingly disposed of by setting aside the notifications dated 8.6.2007 and 27.02.2008 qua the petitioner's property measuring 1 kanal 14 marlas situated within the municipal limits of Bawal, District Rewari.

Ordered accordingly.

Dasti.

[SURYA KANT] JUDGE

December 03, 2013 [SURINDER GUPTA] Mohinder JUDGE

¶28

Kumar Mohinder 2014.01.10 15:22 I attest to the accuracy of this order Chandigarh

Malho Devi v. State of Haryana and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Malho Devi v. State of Haryana and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Vishwakarma Sewing Machine Industries, Bassi Pathana Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Lajpat Rai Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Bharat Bhushan Vs Chairman and Ors.

M/S Kadimi Organics Ltd. and Ors. Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Gurmeet Kaur Mann and Ors. Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Rameshwar Parshad Vs Hry State Warehousingh Corp