Anil Kakkar vs State of Haryana - 2011 Supreme(P&H) 346

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2011 Supreme(P&H) 346

JASBIR SINGH, AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH
Anil Kakkar – Appellant
Versus
State of Haryana – Respondent

Advocates:
Present:Mr. Shailendra Jain, Advocate, for the petitioners.
Mr. M.L.Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioners (in CWP Nos. 19369, 20127 of 2005, 807, 842, 911, 952, 1009, 1145 and 1222 of 2006)
Mr. G.K.Chawla, Advocate, (in CWP No. 19091 of 2005)
Mr. N.D.Achint, Advocate,
Mr. C.M.Munjal, Advocate, and Mr. Pawan Malik, Advocate (in CWP Nos. 942, 952, 1090, 1138, 1223, 1377, 1621 and 1650 of 2006)
Mr. Kamaljit Singh Advocate, for Mr. R.P.S. Khosla Advocate.
Mr. Raghuwinder Singh, Advocate and Mr. Vibhav Jain Advocate, for Mr. Puneet Bali, Advocate, for the petitioner(s).
Mr. Ajay Nara, Advocate, for HUDA (in CWP No. 7435 of 2006)
Mr. A.K. Pathania, Advocate, for HSIIDC.
Mr. Arun Walia, Advocate, for HUDA (in CWP Nos. 9308 and 9312 of 2006)
Mr. J.L.Malhotra, Advocate, for respondent No. 8 (in CWP No. 19252 of 2005)
Mr. Kamal Sehgal, Addl. A.G. Haryana.

JUDGMENT

Mr. Augustine George Masih, J.:- Through this order, we propose to decide CWP Nos. 19595 of 2005, 5074, 13198 and 14399 of 2004, 17628, 17630, 17910, 18000, 18007, 18018, 18056, 18376, 18508, 18557, 19072, 19091, 19104, 19230, 19252, 19317, 19330, 19369 and 20127 of 2005, 807, 842, 911, 942, 952, 1009, 1090, 1138, 1145, 1211, 1222, 1223, 1377, 1650, 7435, 9308, 9312, 12313 and 15711 of 2006, 1042 and 2821 of 2007, 16835 of 2009 and 7352 of 2010 (46 cases), wherein notifications issued under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the L.A. Act’) dated 15.11.2002 (Annexure P-12) and 12.11.2003 (Annexure P-15), report of the High Powered Committee dated 10.11.2005 (Annexure P-19) and Award dated 18.11.2005 stand challenged.

2. It was agreed between the counsel for the parties on 01.11.2005 that CWP No. 19595 of 2005 shall be treated as a lead case thus, the facts are being taken from it.

3. M/s Aryan Exports-petitioner No. 2 (hereinafter referred to as ‘petitioner firm’) is a partnership firm. The land in dispute measuring 4 Kanals 2 Marlas comprised in Khasra No. 28/20/2/2/1 situated in the revenue estate of village Begampur Khatola, T

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2011 Supreme(P&H) 346

JASBIR SINGH, AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIHAnil Kakkar – AppellantVersusState of Haryana – Respondent

JASBIR SINGH, AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH
Anil Kakkar – Appellant
Versus
State of Haryana – Respondent