Murlidhar v. State of Haryana & Ors.
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India art. 226
- Land Acquisition Act, 1894 s. 4
Key paragraphs
- Para 33. Accordingly, the present writ petition fails and the same is dismissed. (M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE (RAJIV NARAIN RAINA) JUDGE December 12, 2011 Atul
Judgment
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV NARAIN RAINA Present: Mr. Naveen S. Bhardwaj, Advocate for the petitioners
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 filed under Article 226 of the Constitution prays for quashing of notification dated 12.12.2008 (P- 2) issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for brevity ‘the Act’) and a declaration dated 11.11.2009 (P-4) issued under Section 6 of the Act.
It is conceded as a fact that the award in this case has already been passed before the date of filing of the writ petition and therefore, no interference would be warranted after passing of the award on account of well settled principles of law laid down by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of 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) CWP No. 22960 of 2011 -2- 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 present writ petition fails and the same is dismissed. (M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE (RAJIV NARAIN RAINA) JUDGE December 12, 2011 Atul
Questions this judgment answers
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — art. 226; Land Acquisition Act, 1894 — s. 4.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Punjab & Haryana High Court, on 12 Dec 2011. The bench was M M KUMAR, RAJIV NARAIN RAINA.
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.