Pinjore Valley (Regd.) v. State of Haryana & Ors.
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
Key paragraphs
- Para 22. Accordingly, the writ petition fails and the same is dismissed. (M.M. KUMAR) ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE (GURDEV SINGH) JUDGE September 26, 2011 Atul
Judgment
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH Present: Mr. Narender Sura, Advocate for the petitioner.
1. To be referred to the Reporters or not?
2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? M.M. KUMAR, J.
The instant petition under Article 226 has been filed after passing of award on 24.09.2010 (P-13) under Section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for brevity 'the Act'). It is well settled that no petition would be maintainable after the award has been passed and the possession of the land has been taken. A perusal of the award dated 24.09.2010 shows that the possession of the land has been taken after offering compensation. The land has also been handed over to HUDA under Section 16 of the Act. Therefore, no power under Section 48 of the Act could be exercised for release of the land. The aforesaid view is supported by a catena of judgments rendered in the cases of Municipal Corporation of Greater CWP No. 17471 of 2011 -2- Bombay v. Industrial Development and Investment Company (P) Ltd. (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.
Accordingly, the writ petition fails and the same is dismissed. (M.M. KUMAR) ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE (GURDEV SINGH) JUDGE September 26, 2011 Atul
Questions this judgment answers
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 — s. 11.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Punjab & Haryana High Court, on 26 Sep 2011. The bench was GURDEV SINGH, M M KUMAR.
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.