Kalu Ram & Ors. v. State of Haryana & Ors.
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
Judgment
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN Present: Mr. Suman Jain, Advocate, for the petitioners.
To be referred to the Reporters or not?
Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? M.M. KUMAR, J. This petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution prays for quashing notification dated 15.6.2006, issued under Section Sections 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for brevity, ‘the Act’) and declaration dated 14.6.2007, made under Section 6 of the Act (P-4 and P-7 respectively) and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom. The Government has acquired the land for a public purpose, namely, for the development and utilization of land as commercial and residential public utility for Sector 12, Palwal, under the Haryana Urban Development Authority Act, 1977, for the Haryana Urban Development Authority. It is an admitted position that award in the acquisition proceedings in question has already been passed on
13.6.2009 before filing of the instant petition, which has been filed on CWP No. 4108 of 2010 2
8.3.2010. After hearing learned counsel for the parties at a considerable length we find that no ground made out to accept the contention raised by the petitioners and to quash the acquisition proceedings subject matter of instant petition. Award in the present case has already been announced on
13.6.2009 before filing of the instant petition. It is well settled that no writ petition would be competent after passing of award because possession of land, free from all encumbrances was taken and it is deemed to be vested in the State Government. In that regard reliance may be placed on the judgments of Hon’ble the Supreme Court rendered in the cases of Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay v. Industrial Development and Investment Company (P) Limited, (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
dismissed. In view of above, the writ petition fails and the same is (M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE (JITENDRA CHAUHAN) JUDGE March 9, 2010 Pkapoor
Questions this judgment answers
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — art. 226; Land Acquisition Act, 1894 — s. 4; Haryana Urban Development Authority Act, 1977.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Punjab & Haryana High Court, on 09 Mar 2010. The bench was M M KUMAR, JITENDRA CHAUHAN.
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.