Ashok Kumar v. State of Haryana & Ors.
Case at a glance
Outcome
Dismissed
Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India art. 226
- Land Acquisition Act, 1894 s. 6
Key paragraphs
- Para 44. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. (M.M. KUMAR) ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE (RAJIV NARAIN RAINA) JUDGE
Judgment
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV NARAIN RAINA Present: Mr. R.S. Mamli, 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 of the Constitution of India is directed against the Notification dated 30.05.2005 issued under Section 4 (Annexure P-1) and notification under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for brevity the 'Act')on 22.05.2006 (Annexure P-2). It is conceded as a fact that the award has already been passed in July 2007. The aforementioned fact has been conceded by Mr. Mamli during the course of the hearing. After passing of the award, the possession is also taken in respect of the land belonging to the petitioner.
It is well settled that no petition is maintainable after the award is passed and the possession of the land is taken because the land vests in the State. So there is no possibility even otherwise to exercise jurisdiction under Section 48 of the Act to release the land. CWP No.18708 of 2011 -2-
For the aforementioned reasons, we place reliance on Municipal Corporation of Greater 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.
Operative part
Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. (M.M. KUMAR) ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE (RAJIV NARAIN RAINA) JUDGE
04.10.2011
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — art. 226; Land Acquisition Act, 1894 — s. 6.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Punjab & Haryana High Court, on 04 Oct 2011. The bench was RAJIV NARAIN RAINA, 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.