Ranishaver Poultry Breeding Farms Private Limited v. State of Haryana & Ors.
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
Judgment
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN Present: Mr. V.K. Jain, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Prashant Vashisth, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Kamal Sehgal, Addl. AG, Haryana, for the respondents.
To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? M.M. KUMAR, J. This petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution prays for quashing notification dated 11.9.1990, issued under Section Sections 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for brevity, ‘the Act’) and declaration dated
10.9.1991, made under Section 6 of the Act (P-2 and P-4 respectively) and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom. The Government has acquired the land for a public purpose, namely, for the development and utilization of land as residential and commercial area in Gurgaon, under the Haryana Urban Development Authority Act, 1977, by the Haryana Urban Development Authority. At the hearing, learned State counsel has apprised the Court that the instant petition was filed on 22.9.1993 whereas the award was announced on CWP No. 11679 of 1993 2
8.9.1993 and possession of the land in dispute belonging to the petitioner was also taken. It has further been submitted that some area under acquisition has already been released, therefore, there is no room to release the land as the land after announcement of award, free from all encumbrances vests in the State Government. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to controvert the aforementioned factual position. After hearing learned counsel for the parties we find that no ground is made out to accept the contention raised by the petitioner and to quash the acquisition proceedings subject matter of instant petition. Award in the present case has already been announced on 8.9.1993 before filing of the instant petition. It is well settled that no writ petition would be competent after passing of award because possession of land, free from all encumbrances was taken and it is deemed to be vested in the State Government. In that regard reliance may be placed on the judgments of Hon’ble the Supreme Court rendered in the cases of Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay v. Industrial Development and Investment Company (P) Limited, (1996) 11 SCC 501; Municipal Council, Ahmednagar v. Shah Hyder Beig, (2000) 2 SCC 48; C. Padma v. Deputy Secretary to the Government of Tamil Nadu, (1997) 2 SCC 627; Star Wire (India) Ltd. v. State of Haryana, (1996) 11 SCC 698; and M/s Swaika Properties Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Rajasthan, JT 2008 (2) SC 280. In view of above, the writ petition fails and the same is dismissed. (M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE May 5, 2010 (JITENDRA CHAUHAN) JUDGE CWP No. 11679 of 1993 3 Pkapoor
Questions this judgment answers
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — art. 226; Land Acquisition Act, 1894 — s. 4; Haryana Urban Development Authority Act, 1977.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Punjab & Haryana High Court, on 05 May 2010. The bench was M M KUMAR, JITENDRA CHAUHAN.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.