Om Parkash v. State of Haryana & Ors.
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
Key paragraphs
- Para 22. 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 3.1.2007, issued under Section Sections 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for brevity, ‘the Act’), declaration dated…
Judgment
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN Present: Mr. Vikram Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner.
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 3.1.2007, issued under Section Sections 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for brevity, ‘the Act’), declaration dated 2.1.2008, made under Section 6 of the Act (P-2 and P-4 respectively) and all subsequent proceedings. A further prayer has been made for directing the respondents to release the garden, residential house, tubewell, cattle shed etc. of the petitioner. The Government has acquired the land for a public purpose, namely, for the development and utilisation of land as residential, commercial, transport and communication area for Sector 1, Taraori, under the Haryana Urban Development Authority Act, 1977, by the Haryana Urban Development Authority in the area of Village Takhna, H.B. No. 46, Padhana, H.B. No. 71, Dodwa, H.B. No. 73 and Shyma Garh, H.B. No. 77, Tehsil and District Karnal. CWP No. 5847 of 2010 2 It is an admitted position that award in the acquisition proceedings in question has already been passed before filing of the instant petition. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner we find that no ground is made out to accept the contention raised by the petitioner and to quash the acquisition proceedings subject matter of instant petition. It has fairly been conceded by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the award in the present case has already been announced 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 vest 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 280. In view of above, the writ petition fails and the same is dismissed. (M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE (JITENDRA CHAUHAN) JUDGE March 31, 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 31 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.