Disposed

Amit and Another v. State of Haryana and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC16 Dec 2013CWP/27517/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court disposed of a writ petition challenging land acquisition notifications. Finding similar controversy already dealt with in another case, the Court directed the authorities to consider the petitioners' claim in light of the earlier decision and directed maintenance of status-quo for four months.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondents to consider claimers light of earlier order; maintenance of status-quo for four months.

Amit and Another 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.27517 of 2013 Date of Decision: December 16, 2013

¶3

Amit and another .....Petitioners

¶4

versus

¶5

State of Haryana and others .....Respondents

¶6

CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT.

¶7

HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURINDER GUPTA.

¶8

Present : Mr.Sanjeev Kodan, Advocate, for the petitioners Mr.S.S.Patter, Sr.DAG. Haryana.

¶9

-.-

¶10

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

¶11

2.To be referred to the Reporters or not?

¶12

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

¶13

Surya Kant, J. (Oral)

¶14

Notice of motion.

¶15

Mr.S.S.Patter, learned Senior Deputy Advocate

¶16

General, Haryana, accepts notice on behalf of the respondents.

¶17

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.

¶18

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.

¶19

The petitioners impugn 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,

¶20

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

¶21

[2]

¶22

CWP No.27517 of 2013

¶23

respectively, qua acquisition of their land for the public purpose of development of residential Sectors 9 Part & 10 Part, at Dadri, District Bhiwani.

¶24

During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the parties are ad-idem that similar controversy has already been 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).

¶25

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

¶26

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.

¶27

Till then, both the parties are directed to maintain

¶28

status-quo.

¶29

Dasti.

¶30

[SURYA KANT] JUDGE December 16, 2013 [SURINDER GUPTA] Mohinder JUDGE

¶31

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

Amit and Another v. State of Haryana and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Amit and Another 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mahender Singh Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Aruna Sachdeva Vs State of Haryana and Anr.

Narinder Vs State of Haryana & Ors.

Rupali Mahajan Vs Pgimer, Sector 12, Chandigarh and Ors.

Santosh Rani & Ors. Vs State of Haryana & Ors.

Fateh Singh and Others Vs State of Haryana and Others