Disposed

Ajit Singh v. State of Haryana & Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC28 May 2014CWP/10700/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court, relying on a related writ petition, disposed of the present petition by directing respondents to verify if the petitioner's acquired land is still needed for public purpose. If not, authorities must consider releasing it, subject to refund of compensation with interest.

What did the court decide?

Direction to verify necessity of land; if unrequired, release land subject to refund of compensation with interest.

Ajit Singh 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.10700 of 2014 Date of Decision: May 28, 2014

Ajit Singh

.....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.N.K.Malhotra, Advocate, for the petitioner. Ms.Palika Monga, DAG, Haryana. Mr.A.S.Arora, Advocate, for Mr.Raman B.Garg, Advocate, for respondent No2.

¶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

Notice of motion.

¶16

On our asking, Ms.Palika Monga, learned Deputy Advocate General, Haryana, accepts notice on behalf of respondent Nos.1,3 & 4 and Mr.A.S.Arora, Advocate, for Mr.Raman B.Garg, Advocate, accepts notice on behalf of respondent No.2.

¶17

Let three copies of the writ petition be supplied to the learned State counsel and two copies to learned counsel for respondent No.2 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 non-prosecution.

¶18

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

¶19

Kumar Mohinder 2014.07.10 15:33 I attest to the accuracy of this order Chandigarh

¶20

CWP No.10700 of 2014

¶21

[2]

¶22

The petitioner seeks a direction for deciding his representation dated 22.11.2013 (Annexure P-8). The abovestated relief has been sought in the backdrop that the petitioner's land fully detailed in para No.2 of the writ petition, has been acquired for the development of Sector-36A at Rohtak. The relief sought in the representation is that the land which is not needed for any public purpose and lying unutilized, may be released.

¶23

Such a controversy pertaining to Sector-36, Rohtak, came up for consideration in CWP No.1171 of 2014 (Surjit Singh and others versus State of Haryana and others). The said writ petition was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 23.01.2014 with the following directions:-

¶24

“........Suffice it to observe that this Court has already viewed that “the acquisition of land in excess to what is needed for a bonafide public purpose is also detrimental to the public interest as it would be an unwarranted burden on the State exchequer”. The question as to whether the petitioners' un-utilized land is still needed for a bonafide 'public purpose' or not has to be determined firstly by the authorities.

¶25

Consequently, we dispose of this writ petition with a direction to the respondents to verify the petitioners' above-mentioned claim and if, on objective consideration of the whole matter, the authorities are of the view that there is no likelihood of utilization of the petitioners' land for any public purpose, consider the desirability of releasing the same

¶26

Kumar Mohinder 2014.07.10 15:33 I attest to the accuracy of this order Chandigarh

¶27

[3]

¶28

CWP No.10700 of 2014

¶29

subject to the condition that if the petitioners have received any compensation, they would refund the same alongwith interest @ prescribed under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act. 1894......”

¶30

The instant writ petition is also accordingly disposed of in the same terms.

¶31

Dasti.

¶32

[SURYA KANT] JUDGE May 28, 2014 [LISA GILL] Mohinder JUDGE

¶33

Kumar Mohinder 2014.07.10 15:33 I attest to the accuracy of this order Chandigarh

Ajit Singh v. State of Haryana & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ajit Singh 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

Amar Nath Vs Union of India & Ors.

Vinod Kumar and Anr. Vs Chandigarh Administration and Anr.

Harwinder Singh Vs Union of India & Ors.

Pankaj Aneja and Anr. Vs HUDA and Ors.

Ajit Singh and Others Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Karnail Singh Vs State of Punjab