This order disposes of a writ petition challenging land acquisition under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and the 2013 Act. The court noted that the underlying acquisition had already been quashed in a connected case (CWP No.5211 of 2014) and dismissed the petition accordingly.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Civil Writ Petition No.25226of2014(O&M)
DATE OF DECISION: 10.12.2014
Tejbir Singh and another
…..Petitioners
versus
The State of Haryana and others
.....Respondents
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE RAJ RAHUL GARG
Present: Mr. Vikram Singh, Advocate for the petitioners
ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE (Oral):
Notice of motion to respondent Nos.1 & 2 only at
this stage.
On our asking, Ms.Palika Monga, learned Deputy
Advocate General, Haryana, accepts notice on their behalf.
Let two copies of the writ petition be supplied to
the learned State counsel during the course of the day
failing which this order shall automatically stand recalled
and the writ petition shall be deemed to have been dismissed
for non-prosecution.
In view of the nature of order which we propose to
pass, there is no need to seek any counter-reply
from respondent Nos.1 & 2 or to serve respondent No.3 at this
stage. The petitioners impugn acquisition of their land
PARKASH CHAND 2014.12.11 12:53 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document
CWP-25226-2014
- 2 -
carried out vide notifications dated 11.07.2006 (Annexure P-
1) and 16.07.2007 (Annexure P-3) issued under Sections 4 and
6, respectively, of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 on the
premise that houses/structures/buildings of similarly
placed persons have been released from acquisition and since
possession of the acquired land has not been taken from them,
the provisions contained in Section 24 (2) of The Right to
Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition,
Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 shall apply and the
old acquisition is deemed to have been lapsed.
During the course of hearing learned counsel for
the parties are ad-idem that this very acquisition stands
quashed by this Court qua the petitioners in CWP No.5211 of
2014 (Krishna Deviversus The State of Haryana and others)
and connected case, decided on 11.03.2014.
The instant writ petition is also thus disposed of
in terms of the afore-cited order passed in Krishna Devi's
case (supra).
Dasti.
10.12.2014 ( RAJ RAHUL GARG )
parkash*JUDGE
PARKASH CHAND 2014.12.11 12:53 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the writ petition regarding the acquisition of land needs to be dismissed in light of the earlier order quashing the same acquisition in a connected case.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Krishna Devi versus The State of Haryana and othersReferred¶22
KWP No.5211 of 2014 (Krishna Devi versus The State of Haryana and others)
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Tejbir Singh
The State of Haryana
Ashutosh Mohunta
Raj Rahul Garg
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court