Rakesh Batra & Ors. v. State of Haryana & Ors.
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
Judgment
CORAM: Hon’ble Mr.Justice Jasbir Singh Hon’ble Mr.Justice Augustine George Masih Present: Mr.Puneet Bali, Advocate for the petitioners Jasbir Singh, J. (Oral) This writ petition has been filed to lay challenge to a notification dated 14.2.2007 (P3), issued under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (in short, the Act), to acquire more than 31 acres of lands, including land of the petitioners. Further challenge is to the notification issued under section 6 of the act on 15.2.2007 (P4). It is contention of counsel for the petitioners that their land was released earlier from acquisition in the year 1989 and that order of release was upheld by this Court in CWP No.9141 of 1990 decided on 16.5.2001. It is not in dispute that after issuance of notification under Section 6 of the Act on 15.4.2007 (P4), the Collector has passed an award on 12.2.2009. If the petitioners were aggrieved against the notifications issued under sections 4 and 6 of the act, as mentioned above, ample opportunity was available with them to lay challenge to those notifications. They kept mum and allowed the authorities to pronounce award regarding Civil Writ Petition No.11710 of 2010 2 the land which was subject matter of acquisition vide those notifications. Even after passing of the award they waited for a long time to file this writ petition. In view of ratio of judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the writ petition, after passing of the award, cannot be entertained. Reliance in that regard may be placed on the judgments 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 facts mentioned above, no case is made out for interference. Dismissed. (Jasbir Singh) Judge
06.07.2010 (Augustine George Masih) Judge
Questions this judgment answers
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 — s. 4.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Punjab & Haryana High Court, on 06 Jul 2010. The bench was JASBIR SINGH.
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.