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

2014 Supreme(P&H) 1024

HEMANT GUPTA, G.S.SANDHAWALIA, KULDIP SINGH
Maharana Pratap Charitable Trust – Appellant
Versus
State of Haryana – Respondent


For the Petitioners:Mr. M.L. Sarin, Senior Advocate with Mr. Hemant Sarin and Nitin Sarin, Advocates.
For the Appearing Parties:Mr. Shailendra Jain, Senior Advocate with Mr. Mannu Chaudhary, Advocate and Mr. R.S. Rai, Senior Advocate with Mr. Rajeev Anand and Harsh Bunger, Advocates and Mr. Puneet Bali, Senior Advocate with Mr. Parveen Jain and Mr. Arun Gupta, Advocates and Mr. Mohan Jain, Senior Advocate with Mr. Dinesh Thakur, Mr. Fateh Saini and Ms. Arastu Chopra, Advocates and Dr. Ashwani Kumar, Senior Advocate with Mr. Aashish Chopra and Ms. Stuti Tandon, Advocates and Mr. Adarsh Jain, Advocate.
For the Respondents:Mr. B.R. Mahajan, Advocate General, Haryana, with Mr. Lokesh Sinhal, Additional AG, Haryana.
For the Land Owners:Mr. H.S. Hooda, AG, Haryana, with Mr. Kamal Sehgal, Additional Advocate General, Haryana, Mr. Ashok Aggarwal, Advocate General, Punjab, with Mr. P.S. Bajwa, Additional Advocate General, Punjab.
For the U.T., Chandigarh:Mr. Sanjeev Sharma, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Shekhar Verma, Advocate.
For the HUDA:Mr. Arun Walia, Senior Advocate with Mr. Gitish Bhardwaj and Mr. Sarv Daman Rathore, Advocates.
For the Respondent No. 4:Mr. Rajesh Sheoran, Advocate.

JUDGMENT

Mr. Hemant Gupta, J.: - In CWP No. 6860 of 2007, the interpretation of Section 24 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (for short ‘the Act”), is the subject matter of opinion of this Bench consequent to an order dated 10.7.2014 passed by the Division Bench, of which one of us (Hemant Gupta, J.) was a member so as to examine whether the order of the Hon”ble Supreme Court in Union of India v. Shiv Raj & Others, (2014)6 SCC 564, would be applicable to the cases where there is an interim order passed by the Court. In other words, whether the period of stay granted by a Court is required to be excluded for determining the period of five years for lapsing of proceedings initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘the Old Act”).

2. The said questions arise out of the fact that the present writ petition was filed challenging the Notifications under Sections 4 and 6 dated 21.3.2006 and 20.3.2007 of the old Act. In the writ petition, an order of stay of dispossession was granted on 8.5.2007. The said order continues till today.

3. Subsequently, another question “Whether the benefit of Section













































































































































































































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