Dismissed

Sunita Devi v. State of Haryana & Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC26 May 2014CWP/10260/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition questioning the land acquisition for a link road without deciding on merits. The court acknowledged potential non-compliance with Section 5-A, cited a Supreme Court precedent, and directed the authority to decide the petitioner's representation.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed without deciding on merits; liberty granted to petitioner to represent Competent Authority for decision on her representation.

Sunita Devi Vs State of Haryana & Ors. — Land Acquisition | Punjab & Haryana HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

Civil Writ Petition No.10260 of 2014 Date of Decision: May 26, 2014

Sunita Devi

.....Petitioner

versus

State of Haryana and others

¶7

.....Respondents

¶8

CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT. HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE LISA GILL.

¶9

Present : Mr.D.R.Bansal, Advocate, for the petitioner.

¶10

-.-

¶11

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

¶12

To be referred to the Reporters or not?

¶13

Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

¶14

Surya Kant, J. (Oral)

¶15

The petitioner impugns the notifications dated 27.08.2007/07.09.2007 and 09.09.2007 issued under Sections 4 & 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), followed by Award dated 28.03.2008 in respect of acquisition of her land situated within the revenue estate of village Nalagarh, District Panchkula, particulars whereof have not been disclosed in the writ petition. The petitioner, however, candidly acknowledges that she has received compensation. The acquisition was made for the public purpose of providing link road/Pinjore Bye-pass from National Highway No.22 to Aviation Club situated at village Nalagarh. It also appears from the averments made in the writ petition that the acquired land has been utilized for the notified public purpose.

¶16

The petitioner at this belated stage questions the acquisition relying upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme

¶17

Kumar Mohinder 2014.07.09 12:07 I attest to the accuracy of this order Chandigarh

¶18

[2]

¶19

CWP No.10260 of 2014

¶20

Court dated 07.08.2013 passed in Civil Appeal Nos.6668-6669 of 2013 (Gian Chand and others versus State of Haryana and others) (Annexure P-7) which pertains to an acquisition of the same area though carried out vide different notifications. It may be seen from Gian Chand and others' case (supra) that acquisition was quashed after holding that there is noncompliance of the mandatory procedure contained in Section 5-A of the Act. The petitioner has opted to file this writ petition after more than six years of passing of the Award even without representing the authorities with regard to noncompliance of the provisions of Section 5-A of the Act.

¶21

In these circumstances, we dispose of this writ petition, without expressing any views on merits however with liberty to the petitioner to represent the Competent Authority who shall consider and decide her representation in accordance with law and keeping in view the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gian Chand and others' case (supra).

¶22

Ordered accordingly.

¶23

Dasti.

¶24

[SURYA KANT] JUDGE May 26, 2014 [LISA GILL] Mohinder JUDGE

¶25

Kumar Mohinder 2014.07.09 12:07 I attest to the accuracy of this order Chandigarh

Sunita Devi v. State of Haryana & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sunita Devi v. State of Haryana & 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

The Shree Sanatan Dharam Sabha Vs State of Hy.

Tarlochan Singh & Ors. Vs Haryana Urban Development Authority & Ors.

Mukesh Kumar Vs State of Haryana & Ors.

Chandawali Pipe Industries Vs State of Hry. and Ors.

Sudesh Goyal Vs Ut Chandigarh Administration & Ors.

Sanjit Kumar Vs State of Haryana & Ors.