Disposed

Vijay Kumar v. State of Haryana and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC12 Dec 2013CWP/27342/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order addresses the petitioner's writ petition challenging notifications for land acquisition. The court, hearing learned counsel in agreement, disposed of the petition by directing respondents to consider the petitioner's claim in accordance with the order in Kuldeep Singh versus State of Haryana in four months, maintaining status quo in the meantime.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondents to consider the petitioner's claim in light of the Kuldeep Singh order within four months.

Vijay Kumar 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.27342 of 2013 Date of Decision: December 12, 2013

Vijay Kumar

.....Petitioner

versus

State of Haryana and others

¶7

.....Respondents

¶8

CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT.

¶9

HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURINDER GUPTA.

¶10

Present : Mr.Ajaiveer Singh, Advocate, for

¶11

Mr.Sanjeev Kodan, Advocate, for the petitioner. Ms.Palika Monga, Deputy AG, Haryana.

¶12

-.-

¶13

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

¶14

To be referred to the Reporters or not?

¶15

Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

¶16

¶17

Surya Kant, J. (Oral)

¶18

Notice of motion.

¶19

Ms.Palika Monga, learned Deputy Advocate General, Haryana, accepts notice on behalf of the respondents.

¶20

Let three copies of the writ petition be supplied to the learned State Counsel during the course of day failing which this order shall be automatically recalled and the writ petition shall be deemed to have been dismissed for nonprosecution.

¶21

In view of the nature of order which we propose to pass, there is no necessity to seek any counter-reply from the respondents at this stage.

¶22

The petitioner impugns the notifications dated 18.12.2008 (Annexure P-1) and 17.12.2009 (Annexure P-2) issued under Sections 4 & 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, respectively, qua acquisition of his land for the public purpose

¶23

Kumar Mohinder 2014.01.08 15:37 I attest to the accuracy of this order Chandigarh

¶24

CWP No.27342 of 2013

¶25

[2]

¶26

of development of residential Sectors 9 Part & 10 Part, at Dadri, District Bhiwani.

¶27

During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the parties are ad-idem that similar controversy has been elaborately dealt with by this Court vide order dated 20.08.2013 passed in a bunch of writ petitions including CWP No.23386 of 2011 (Kuldeep Singh versus State of Haryana and another).

¶28

We thus dispose of this writ petition with a direction to the respondents that let the claim of the petitioner be also considered in the light of above-cited order in Kuldeep Singh's case (supra).

¶29

Let an appropriate order in this regard be passed within a period of four months from the date of receiving a certified copy of this order.

¶30

Till then, both the parties are directed to maintain

¶31

status-quo.

¶32

Dasti.

¶33

[SURYA KANT] JUDGE December 12, 2013 [SURINDER GUPTA] Mohinder JUDGE

¶34

Kumar Mohinder 2014.01.08 15:37 I attest to the accuracy of this order Chandigarh

Vijay Kumar v. State of Haryana and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vijay Kumar 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

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. and Ors. Vs Dharambir and Ors.

Chandigarh Administration Vs Jagdish Chander and Ors.

Jagtar Singh and Others Vs State of Punjab etc.

Dalbir Singh Vs Punjab Mandi Baord and Ors.

Dariya Singh Vs State of Haryana & Ors.

Urmila Rao Vs State of Haryana and Ors.