Disposed

M/S Kaur Sain Spinners Ltd. v. State of Punjab and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC4 May 2013CWP/8927/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court directed the Principal Secretary, Housing and Urban Development, Punjab, to treat the ownership notice as objections to land acquisition and pass a speaking order within one month due to delays in awarding compensation.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondents to treat petitioner's notice as objections and pass a speaking order within one month.

M/S Kaur Sain Spinners Ltd. Vs State of Punjab and… — Land Acquisition | Punjab & Haryana HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

Civil Writ Petition No.8927 of 2013 Date of Decision : May 04, 2013

¶3

M/s Kaur Sain Spinner Ltd.

¶4

.....Petitioner

¶5

versus

¶6

State of Punjab and another

¶7

.....Respondents

¶8

CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.P.NAGRATH.

¶9

Present : Mr.Akshay Bhan, Advocate, for the petitioner. Ms.Munisha Gandhi, Additional AG, Punjab.

¶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

Notice of motion.

¶17

Ms.Munisha Gandhi, learned Additional Advocate

¶18

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

¶19

Let two copies of the writ petition be supplied to

¶20

the learned State counsel during the course of day failing which the 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

¶22

pass, there is no necessity to seek any counter-reply from the respondents at this stage.

¶23

CWP No.8927 of 2013

¶24

[2]

¶25

The petitioner-Industry is aggrieved by the Notifications dated 15.6.2012 and 19.6.2012 (Annexures P-1 & P-2, respectively) issued under Sections 4 and 17(4) of the

¶26

Land Acquisition Act, 1894, whereby its land measuring 3 bighas-3 biswas has been acquired by invoking urgency clause to set up the Sewerage Treatment Plant (for short, 'the STP').

¶27

In the very nature of things, no opportunity like submission of objections against the proposed acquisition, as contemplated under Section 5-A of the Land Acquisition Act, was given to the petitioner. However, pursuant to the public notice issued by the Land Acquisition Collector inviting objections/claims for determination of the compensation, the petitioner-industry has submitted its objections. A perusal of the objections would reveal that the petitioner has questioned the very justification of the acquisition pointing out that there were other suitable sites available for setting up the STP. The petitioner thereafter submitted a reminder dated 23.7.2012 also but those objections have yet not been finally decided. It is also pointed out by learned counsel for the petitioner that no Award of the acquired land has been passed so far. He states that STP has also not been installed.

¶28

In these circumstances and having regard to the public purpose for which the land is sought to be acquired but

¶29

CWP No.8927 of 2013 [3]

¶30

keeping in view the delay in passing of the Award despite invoking urgency clause, we dispose of this writ petition with a direction to respondent No.1, namely, the Principal Secretary, Department of Housing and Urban Development, Punjab, to treat this writ petition as objections on behalf of petitioner against the subject acquisition and decide the same by passing a speaking order within a period of one month from the date of receiving a certified copy of this order.

¶31

Ordered accordingly.

¶32

Dasti.

¶33

(SURYA KANT) JUDGE $ May 04, 2013 (R.P.NAGRATH) Mohinder JUDGE

M/S Kaur Sain Spinners Ltd. v. State of Punjab and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Kaur Sain Spinners Ltd. v. State of Punjab 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

Sanjeev Gupta Vs Sonia Gupta & Anr.

Daljit Kaur Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Managing Committee S.A. Jain Senior Secondary School Vs Anjala Khanna and Ors.

Joginder Pal Vs State of Punjab and Anr.

Santokh Singh Vs State of Punjab

Public Information Officer Vs State Information Commissioner Punjab