Ram Kaur v. Shaija Vats
Case at a glance
- Decided
- 28 May 2010
- Bench
- M M KUMAR, JITENDRA CHAUHAN
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India art. 226
- Land Acquisition Act, 1894 s. 4
Key paragraphs
- Para 22. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? CWP Nos. 191999, 19201, 19202 & 19203 of 2009 2 M.M. KUMAR, J. This order shall dispose of CWP Nos. 19199, 19201, 19202 and 19203 of 2009, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging…
Judgment
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR Present: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN Mr. Rajiv Kataria, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. S.S. Pattar, Sr. DAG, Haryana, for the respondents.
To be referred to the Reporters or not?
Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? CWP Nos. 191999, 19201, 19202 & 19203 of 2009 2 M.M. KUMAR, J. This order shall dispose of CWP Nos. 19199, 19201, 19202 and 19203 of 2009, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging notification dated 30.11.2006, issued under Section Sections 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for brevity, ‘the Act’) and declaration dated 28.11.2007, made under Section 6 of the Act (P-3 and P-5 respectively). The Government has acquired the land for a public purpose, namely, for the development and utilization of land for residential area for Sectors 27, 28 and 30, Pinjore. It is an admitted position that award in the acquisition proceedings in question has already been passed on 26.11.2009 before filing of these petitions, which were filed on 11.12.2009. After hearing learned counsel for the parties at a considerable length we find that no ground made out to accept the contention raised by the petitioners and to quash the acquisition proceedings subject matter of these petitions. Award in the present case has already been announced on 26.11.2009 before filing of these petitions. 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. CWP Nos. 191999, 19201, 19202 & 19203 of 2009 3 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, these petitions fail and the same are dismissed. May 28, 2010 Pkapoor (M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE (JITENDRA CHAUHAN) JUDGE
Questions this judgment answers
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — art. 226; Land Acquisition Act, 1894 — s. 4.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Punjab & Haryana High Court, on 28 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.