The Court dismissed a writ petition seeking release of acquired land. Even though the land was not used for the intended purpose and compensation was received, the land had vested in the State under settled law, precluding the claim.
Writ petition dismissed; no release of land granted.
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.
104
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CWP No.8226 of 2018 Date of Decision: 02.09.2024
Bhim Singh and others
…Petitioners
Versus
State of Haryana and another
…Respondents
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S. SANDHAWALIA HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA
Present:Mr. Divyam Singh, Advocate for Mr. Vikram Singh, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr. Ankur Mittal, Additional A.G., Haryana with Mr. Saurabh Mago, D.A.G., Haryana for the respondents.
G.S. Sandhawalia, J.(Oral)
Short reply by Bhajan Lal, Block Development and Panchayats Officer, Bawani Khera, has been submitted on behalf of the respondents in the Court today and the same is taken on the record.
NEETU RANI 2024.09.05 10:28 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment PHHC, CHD
CWP No.8226 of 2018 -2-
deed dated 21.06.1977. The notification in question under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was issued on 21.11.1980 for acquiring 16 Marlas of land and thereafter, as per the pleadings itself, the Award has also been passed. The claim as such by the landowners is that the compensation has also been received and the petitioners are ready to deposit the same back as the land was never used for the purpose for which the same was acquired and they are still in physical possession.
(G.S. SANDHAWALIA) JUDGE
| 02.09.2024 | (M | EENA | KSHI I. MEHTA) |
|---|---|---|---|
| neetu | JUDGE | ||
| Whether speaking/reasoned: | Yes | ||
| Whether Reportable: | No |
NEETU RANI 2024.09.05 10:28 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment PHHC, CHD
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the petitioners' claim for release of land under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act succeeds where the land is already vested in the State and not used for the intended purpose.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Indore Development Authority vs. Manoharlal and othersReferred¶20
Indore Development Authority vs. Manoharlal and others, (2020) 8 SCC 129 · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Bhim Singh and others
State of Haryana
G.S. Sandhawalia
Meenakshi I. Mehta
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
