Dismissed

Dariya v. State of Haryana and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC15 Sept 2014CWP/18490/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed a Writ Petition challenging notifications under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The court held that objections raised under Section 5-A by the petitioner and others were considered, rejected after hearing, and therefore the petition had no merit.

What did the court decide?

Writ Petition dismissed. Acquisition notifications remain in force.

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

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

Civil Writ Petition No.18490of2014(O&M)
 DATE OF DECISION: 15.09.2014

¶3

Dariya

¶4

…..Petitioner

¶5

versus

¶6

The State of Haryana and others

¶7

 .....Respondents

¶8

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICEASHUTOSH MOHUNTA,ACTINGCHIEFJUSTICE
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HARINDER SINGH SIDHU

¶9

Present: Mr. Rajender Chhokar, Advocate for the petitioner

¶10

ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE (Oral):

¶11

The petitioner has prayed for quashing notifications

¶12

dated 7.7.2011 and 6.7.2012 issued under Sections 4 and 6 of the
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 whereby the land of the petitioner,
situated in village Jhajjar, was acquired.

¶13

 On the previous date of hearing, learned counsel for
the petitioner argued that the petitioner had filed objections
under Section 5-A of the Act but the respondents without deciding
the same issued the notification under Section 6 of the Act.

¶14

Consequently, the learned State counsel was directed to find out
whether the petitioner had filed objections and, in case the same
were filed, whether any decision had been taken thereon or not.

¶15

Today, Ms. Palika Monga, Deputy Advocate General,
Haryana, has brought in Court the original records pertaining

¶16

PARKASH CHAND 2014.09.17 15:43 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

¶17

CWP-18490-2014

¶18

- 2 -

¶19

to this case. A perusal of the records shows that land owners
of the same khewat as that of the petitioner did file the
objections. However, the same were considered and rejected by
the competent authority. In fact, hearing was also afforded to
the objector of the said Khewat, namely, Mahavir on 30.9.2011
and his statement was also recorded before deciding the
objections.

¶20

We find no merit in the writ petition.

¶21

Dismissed.

¶22

15.09.2014 (HARINDER SINGH SIDHU)
parkash*JUDGE

¶23

PARKASH CHAND 2014.09.17 15:43 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

Dariya v. State of Haryana and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dariya 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mohan Lal Vs State of Haryana & Ors.

Dinseh Kumar and Ors. Vs State of Punjab & Anr.

Shiv Kumar and Ors. Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Lakhvir Singh Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Virender Suhag Vs State of Haryana & Anr.

Harphool and Ors. Vs State of Haryana and Ors.