Dismissed

Kela Devi & Ors. v. State of Haryana & Anr.

Punjab & Haryana HC29 Nov 2018RSA/1628/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The bench dismissed the second appeal as unplanned arguments in 1628 of 2016 regarding notices No.4200 to 4210 issued under Section 13-A(3) of the Land Acquisition Act were found unsustainable. The court held that non-payment provisions allowed recovery as arrears of land revenue, eliminating the involvement of limitation bars.

What did the court decide?

Second appeal dismissed; no ground for interference found in the concurrent finding of fact.

Kela Devi & Ors. Vs State of Haryana & Anr. — Land Acquisition | Punjab & Haryana HC (2018)

¶1

RSA No.1628 of 2016 (O&M)

¶2

-1-

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

RSA No.1628 of 2016 (O&M) Date of Decision.29.11.2018

Kela Devi and others

...Appellants

State of Haryana and another

¶9

...Respondents

¶10

CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL

¶11

Present: Mr. Ravinder Hooda, Advocate for the appellants.

¶12

-.-

¶13

AMIT RAWAL J. (ORAL)

¶14

The appellant-plaintiff has not been successful in laying challenge to the notices No.4200 to 4210 dated 04.01.2012 issued under Section 13-A (3) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 by filing the suit for permanent injunction and declaration on 6.2.2012.

¶15

The main plank in the suit was that notices were without jurisdiction and barred by law of limitation, much less, there was no compliance of principles of natural justice.

¶16

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants submitted that as per the provisions of the aforementioned Act, defendants could not raise the demand directly as there has to be adherence to the principles of natural justice. The award was pronounced on 06.07.2009, therefore, demand in 2012 could not have been raised. It was barred by law of limitation. Even the story coined of excess payment with regard to wrong entry was neither here and there.

¶17

I am afraid aforementioned arguments are not sustainable, for, stand of the defendants with regard to wrong entry

¶18

PANKAJ KUMAR 2018.12.06 13:48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶19

RSA No.1628 of 2016 (O&M) -2-

¶20

qua 29 kanals 18 marlas allegedly recorded in the name of the appellants-plaintiffs had not been disputed. No person can be permitted to take the advantage of wrong calculation and being ineligible cannot have wrongful gain. The provisions of aforementioned Act envisages that in the likelihood of non-payment of the demanded amount, excess amount can always be recovered as arrears of land revenue. In such circumstances, plea of limitation would not be attracted.

¶21

In this view of the matter, I do not find any illegality and perversity in the concurrent finding of fact rendered by the Courts below, much less, no substantial question of law arises for determination by this Court. No ground for interference is made out. Resultantly, the second appeal is dismissed.

¶22

	(A	MIT RAWAL) JUDGE
November 29,	2018
Pankaj*
	Whether Reasoned/Speaking	Yes
	Whether Reportable	No

¶23

PANKAJ KUMAR 2018.12.06 13:48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Kela Devi & Ors. v. State of Haryana & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kela Devi & Ors. v. State of Haryana & Anr.

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

Dhiraj Kumar Vs State of Punjab Thr Collector Ferozepur

Avon Handa Vs State of Punjab Thru. Collector Ferozepur

Rajinder Singh Vs Ranjit Singh

Inderjit Singh Vs Maninder Bir Singh and Anr.

Sukhdev Singh and Ors. Vs Jaspal Singh and Ors.

Dile Ram Deceased Thro Lrs Jaswant Now Deceased Thru Lrs. Neelam and Ors. Vs Mohinder Singh Deceased Thro Lrs Santosh Rani and Ors.