Chetna Estate Private Limited v. State of Haryana & Ors.
Case at a glance
- Decided
- 02 Dec 2010
- Bench
- JASBIR SINGH
Outcome
Disposed of
These writ petitions are disposed of
Provisions considered
- Land Acquisition Act, 1894 ss. 4, 6
Judgment
Operative part
CORAM: Hon’ble Mr.Justice Jasbir Singh Hon’ble Mr.Justice Augustine George Masih Present: Mr.Hemant Saini, Advocate for the petitioner Ms.Palika Monga, DAG Haryana Mr.Amit Sharma, Advocate for HUDA Jasbir Singh, J. (Oral) This order will dispose of three writ petitions bearing CWP Nos.15653, 15661 and 16221 of 2010, involving similar questions of law and facts. For the purpose of dictating order, facts are being mentioned from CWP No.15653 of 2010. In this writ petition, it is main prayer of the petitioner that the excess land, which is not needed to develop a Master Plan Road, be released in their favour. Further challenge has been made to the notifications issued under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (in short, the Act) on 14.8.2008 and 30.8.2008 respectively, to acquire land of the petitioner. So far as challenge to the notifications is concerned, this writ petition having been filed after passing of an Award, in view of ratio of judgments passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of Municipal Civil Writ Petition No.15653 of 2010 2 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 Swaran Lata etc. v. State of Haryana and others AIR 2010 Supreme Court 1664, cannot be entertained. Regarding release of excess land, the petitioner may approach the authorities concerned. These writ petitions are disposed of. (Jasbir Singh) Judge
02.12.2010 (Augustine George Masih) Judge
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: These writ petitions are disposed of
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 — ss. 4, 6.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Punjab & Haryana High Court, on 02 Dec 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.