Petitioner challenged Haryana Rules 2014 Rule 4(2) as contrary to the Land Acquisition Act 2013. Court found no conflict as Rule intent to grant better compensation falls within Statute's enabling provision. Writ dismissed.
Challenge to Rule 4(2) of Haryana R&R Rules, 2014 dismissed.
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 & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Brafat
Civil Writ Petition No.21973 of 2016. Date of Decision: November 08, 2016 ......Petitioner
versus
State of Haryana and others .....Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SUDIP AHLUWALIA.
Present: Mr.Arun Singal, Advocate, for the petitioner.
-.-
Surya Kant, J . (Oral)
The petitioner has laid challenge to Rule 4(2) of the Haryana Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency and Resettlement Rules, 2014 under the misconception that the said Rule runs contrary to Sr.No.2 of the First Schedule attached to the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.
We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and gone through the provisions of the Rule.
Since the intention of the Rule appears to be to grant better compensation for the agricultural land abutting National Highways/State Highways or Mettled Roads and the Rule Making Authority has fixed the factor of 1.00(1) for which the First Schedule of the Act enables it to do so, we do not find any conflict between the Rule and the Statute.
Dismissed.
November 08, 2016 [SUDIP AHLUWALIA] mohinder JUDGE
Mohinder Kumar Kamboj2016.11.23 14:16 Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document Whether Reportable : Yes/No Chandigarh
2 issues framed by the court
Whether Rule 4(2) of the Haryana Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency and Resettlement Rules, 2014 conflicts with Sr.No.2 of the First Schedule of the Land Acquisition Act, 2013.
Whether the Rule-making Authority exceeds its power by fixing a compensation factor of 1.00(1) for agricultural land abutting National Highways.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Brafat
State of Haryana
Surya Kant
Sudip Ahluwalia
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
