SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2013 Supreme(SC) 181

G.S.SINGHVI, H.L.GOKHALE, RANJANA PRAKASH DESAI
HUKAM CHAND – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF HARYANA – Respondent


ORDER

1. Leave granted. Having failed to convince the Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court to quash the acquisition of their land on the grounds of violation of Section 5A(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, 'the Act') and discrimination, the Appellants have preferred these appeals.

2. For the sake of convenience, the facts arc being noticed from the record of the appeal arising out of SLP(C) No. 20303 of 2011.

3. Appellant - Bohru is the co-owner in possession of land comprised in Khewat No. 89, Khata No. 111, Rectangle No. 16, Killa No. 14/2 (4-12) situated in village Fazilwas, Tehsil and District Gurgaon. He constructed thereon a building consisting of 6 rooms with an open verandah, shed and courtyard. After obtaining a licence from the Haryana State Agriculture Marketing Board, the Appellant started a flour mill under the name and style M/s. Dinesh Flour Mill.

4. By notification dated 14.12.2006 issued under Section 4(1) of the Act, the Government of Haryana proposed the acquisition of land situated in seven villages, including Fazilwas, for setting up Choudhary Devi Lal Industrial Model Township. The Appellant filed objections under Section 5A(1) of the






























































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top