Ravinder & Ors. v. State of Haryana & Ors.
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
- Land Acquisition Act, 1894 ss. 4, 6
Judgment
CORAM: Hon’ble Mr.Justice Jasbir Singh Hon’ble Mr.Justice Augustine George Masih Present: Mr.P.K.Chugh, Advocate for the petitioners Jasbir Singh, J. (Oral) By filing this writ petition, notifications issued under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (in short, the Act), on 25.11.2008 and 7.1.2009 respectively, have been challenged. Further challenge has been made to the notice issued under Section 9 of the Act. At the time of arguments, it transpired that award has already been passed on 9.8.2010. In this writ petition, no challenge has been made to the award so passed. In view of ratio of judgments 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 Swaran Lata etc. v. State of Haryana and others AIR 2010 Supreme Court 1664, Civil Writ Petition No.16974 of 2010 2 possibly, after passing of the award, this writ petition can not be entertained. Be that as it may, it is apparent from the records that as per final master plan, land of the petitioners is going to be acquired for widening of the ring road. Counsel for the petitioners has failed to show any mala fide/ discrimination in ordering acquisition of their land. No case is made out for interference. Dismissed. (Jasbir Singh) Judge
21.09.2010 (Augustine George Masih) Judge
Questions this judgment answers
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 21 Sep 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.