Sukhwinder Singh & Anr. v. State of Punjab & Ors.
Case at a glance
Outcome
Disposed of
In view of the said facts, present petition is disposed of in the same
Provisions considered
Judgment
CORAM: - HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV NARAIN RAINA Present: - Mr. Kanwaljeet Singh Sr. Advocate with Mr. AjayVeer Singh, Advocate for the petitioners. Ms. Sudeepti Sharma, DAG Punjab HEMANT GUPTA, J Challenge in the present writ petition is to a notification dated 29.1.2009 (Annexure P-3) issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short the 'Act') read with a declaration for acquisition by invoking the urgency provisions in terms of Section 17(2)(c) of the Act as amended by Punjab . Subsequently, a notification under Section 6 of the Act was published on 12.6.2009 and the Award announced on 24.2.2010. Petitioners have filed the present writ petition on
Operative part
8.11.2011 relying upon a Division Bench order of this Court in Civil Writ petition No.9483 of 2009, Niranjan Singh vs. State of Punjab and ors decided on 21.2.2010, whereby the impugned acquisition was found to be vitiated. -2- Learned counsel for the petitioners have vehemently argued that since the notification intending to acquire land by invocation of the urgency provisions have been found to be bad by this Court in Niranjan Singh's case (supra), therefore, in view of the said judgment, the notification will be deemed to be quashed in its entirety. The ratio of the said judgment will be applicable to all the land owners as the reasons for quashing of the notification were not personal to any of the writ petitioners in the earlier writ petition. It is also argued that though the Award was announced on 24.2.2010 but actual physical possession is still with the respondents. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that in view of the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Prahlad Singh vs. Union of India, (2001)5 SCC 386, the petitioners are entitled to invoke the writ jurisdiction of this Court so as to challenge the acquisition vide the aforesaid notification dated 29.1.2009. Since, the invocation of the urgency provisions vide the notification dated 29.1.2009 have been found to be unjustified, the ratio of the aforesaid judgment in Prahlad Singh' case (supra), will be applicable to the petitioners. Learned Counsel for the State could not controvert any of the arguments raised. In the written statement, the fact that the petitioners are in possession is admitted. The notification under Section 4 and Section 6 has already been quashed. Since the reason to quash the notification are not personal to the writ petitioners in the earlier writ petition, therefore, in view of the said judgment, the acquisition proceedings cannot be permitted to continue as against the present writ petitioners. -3- In view of the said facts, present petition is disposed of in the same terms as in Niranjan Singh's case (supra). (HEMANT GUPTA) JUDGE (RAJIV NARAIN RAINA) JUDGE
7.11.2012 preeti
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: In view of the said facts, present petition is disposed of in the same
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 — s. 4.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Punjab & Haryana High Court, on 07 Nov 2012. The bench was HEMANT GUPTA, RAJIV NARAIN RAINA.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No treatment data yet for this judgment in the Courts & Cases corpus.
Absence of data is not a statement about the judgment’s standing — the corpus covers only judgments we index and link with cited evidence.