M.M.PUNCHHI
Zile Singh – Appellant
Versus
State Of Haryana – Respondent
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
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.