Smt.Sheela Devi v. State of Haryana & Ors.
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
- Land Acquisition Act, 1894 ss. 4, 6
Judgment
Smt. Sheela Devi ...Petitioner State of Haryana and others ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG. Present: --- Mr.S.S.DuhanAdvocate, for the petitioner. Ms.Palika Monga, DAG Haryana, for respondents No.1,2,4 and 5. Mr.Girish Bhardwaj, Advocate, for Mr.Arun Walia, Advocate, for respondent No.3. Jasbir Singh,J.(Oral) This writ petition has been filed to quash the notifications issued under sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 ( in short the Act) on 29.08.2005 and 28.8.2006 respectively. Challenge is also to an order dated 4.8.2010 declining to release land of the petitioner from acquisition. It is not in dispute that award was passed in this case on
3.8.2007. When notice of motion was issued, following contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners was noticed by this Court :-
Counsel for the petitioner states that all constructed houses within the acquired land were released from acquisition, however, the said relief was not given to the petitioner without any justification, even by ignoring recommendation made in her favour by the Land Acquisition Collector. Counsel further submits that the petitioner is still residing in the said house CWP No.18503 of 2010 2 consisting of three marla of land and she has not accepted the compensation. Her application for release of land was declined without any justification
. In response thereto an affidavit has been filed wherein it is specifically stated that land/construction raised by the petitioners falls in the road alignment. To support that contention site plan has also been put on record. If that is so, no relief can be granted to the petitioner as prayed.. Even otherwise, this writ petition cannot be entertained at this belated stage in view of the ratio of the judgments of the Supreme Court in Municipal Corporation of greater Bombay v. Industrial Development and Investment Company (P)Limited, (1996) 11 SCC 501:, 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 Lalta etc. v. State of Haryana and others AIR 2010 Supreme Court,1664. Dismissed. ( Jasbir Singh ) Judge. ( Rakesh Kumar Garg) Judge January 14, 2011
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 14 Jan 2011. The bench was JASBIR SINGH, RAKESH KUMAR GARG.
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.