Ajit Singh & Ors. v. State of Haryana & Ors.
Case at a glance
- Decided
- 22 Apr 2010
- Bench
- M M KUMAR, JITENDRA CHAUHAN
Provisions considered
Key paragraphs
- Para 22. To be referred to the Reporters or not? Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? M.M. KUMAR, J. This order shall dispose of CWP Nos. 10489 of 2009 and 1769 of 2010. Challenge in these petitions is to the notifications dated 29.8.2005…
Judgment
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR Present: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN Mr. M.L.Sharma and Mr. GS Dhaliwal, Advocates for the petitioner Ms. Palika Monga, DAG, Haryana, Mr. Pankaj Middy, , Advocate for respondent no.5
To be referred to the Reporters or not? Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? M.M. KUMAR, J. This order shall dispose of CWP Nos. 10489 of 2009 and 1769 of 2010. Challenge in these petitions is to the notifications dated 29.8.2005 and 28.8.2006 issued under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for brevity, ‘the Act’). The respondent State of Haryana has acquired the land for a public purpose, namely, for residential and commercial Sectors 3,5 and 6 Hansi Area under the Haryana Urban Development Authority Act, 1977. It is admitted position that award in these acquisition CWP No. 1769 of 2010 2 proceedings was passed on 3.8.2007. However, CWP No. 10489 of 2009 was filed on 10.7.2009 and the other petition was filed on 1.2.2010 which is much beyond the date of award. The main plank of argument raised by the counsel for the petitioners is that the land belonging to one Jai Kumar has been released after the award whereas the petitioner has been subjected to hostile discrimination by giving them a different treatment.
The argument is wholly unsustainable. In that regard the explanation tendered by respondent nos. 1 and 5 in para 10 of its written statement deserves to be noticed. It has been explained that land belonging to Jai Kumar was released from acquisition at the stage when Section 6 notification was issued. He has filed objections under Section 5A of the Act and keeping in view the nature of construction raised by him on the land measuring 18 marlas the same was released from acquisition as per government policy. By mistake Shri Jai Kumar has however, taken the amount of compensation amounting to Rs. 99,935/- which was got refunded from him. It has also been pointed out that the construction raised by Jai Kumar is part of cluster where as there is no construction on the land in question. Moreover, no such thing was pointed out in the objections filed under Section 5 A of the Act. Therefore, we have no hesitation to repel the submission made by the learned counsel.
Even otherwise it is conceded position on record that the award in the present case has been announced more than one year prior to filing of the petition. It is well settled that no writ petition would be competent after passing of award because the ownership of the land after taking possession vests in the State Government free from all encumbrances. In that regard reliance may be placed on the judgments of Hon’ble the CWP No. 1769 of 2010 3 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 petitions do not warrant admission and the same are dismissed. A copy of this order be placed on the file of connected petition. (M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE (JITENDRA CHAUHAN) JUDGE April 22, 2010
Questions this judgment answers
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 — ss. 4, 6; Haryana Urban Development Authority Act, 1977.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Punjab & Haryana High Court, on 22 Apr 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.