Petitioners filed a writ petition regarding land acquisition. The State counsel argued the land lacked declaration under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act. Petitioners admitted this. Court disposed of the petition as infructuous.
Petition disposed of as infructuous.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CWP No.20175 of 2012 (O & M) Date of Decision: May 01, 2013
Vipin Chutani and others
....Petitioners
Versus
State of Haryana and others
.... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S. SANDHAWALIA
Present: Ms. Indu Bala, Advocate, for Mr. N.D. Achint, Advocate, for the petitioners.
Mr. S.S. Pattar, Sr.DAG, Haryana.
Mr. Tarun Singla, Advocate, for Mr. R.S. Madan, Advocate, for the respondent-HUDA.
AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J.
Learned State counsel submits that the land in dispute, which was under acquisition as challenged in this writ petition, has not been included in the declaration under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short 'the Act') issued by the State and, therefore, the present writ petition has been rendered infructuous and may be disposed of as such.
fact.
of as having been rendered infructuous.
(AJAY KUMAR MITTAL)
JUDGE
(G.S. SANDHAWALIA) JUDGE
May 01, 2013 sukhpreet
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Vipin Chutani and others
State of Haryana and others
Ajay Kumar Mittal
G.S. Sandhawalia
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
