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

1984 Supreme(P&H) 351

M.M.PUNCHHI
Zile Singh – Appellant
Versus
State Of Haryana – Respondent


Judgment

M.M.Punchhi, J.

1. To begin with, there were 39 petitioners. A considerable number of them withdrew from the contest during the pendency of the petition. The remaining ones remained aggrieved against the two notifications under sections 4 and 6 respectively of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), whereby the State of Haryana, for the purpose of the Haryana Agricultural University, acquired some land of the petitioners for establishment of a research station. The primary point raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that when the notification under section 4 was issued on 3.4.1981 and was followed by a declaration under section 6 of the Act on 7.4.1981 employing the provisions of section 17 of the Act, there occurred lot of discrepancies not only in the description of the field numbers but also in their areas. Even the total land sought to be acquired had wrongly been calculated, the details whereof, without burdening the judgment, can be had from paragraph 4 of the petition. The discrepancies pointed out by the petitioners have not been denied by the State. These have rather been described as accidental errors which were even cor




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