AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, RAJ RAHUL GARG
SEEMA RANI – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF HARYANA – Respondent
Ajay Kumar Mittal, J.
CM No. 5418-CWP-2016
Allowed as prayed for.
CWP No.4984 of 2016
2. The petitioners pray for quashing the notifications dated 30.11.2006, 28.11.2007 issued under sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (in short, "the Act") and all consequential proceedings including the award being in violation of principles of natural justice.
3. A few facts relevant for the decision of the controversy involved as narrated in the petition may be noticed. Petitioner No.1 purchased land measuring 2 biswas 15 biswansies vide sale deed dated 7.3.2006 from one Ramesh Kumar for construction of her house. Vide sale deed dated 28.6.2006, petitioner No.1 sold about 1 biswa 6 biswansies of land. The mutation was sanctioned on 4.9.2006 in favour of petitioner No.2. The State of Haryana vide notification dated 30.6.2006, Annexure P.1 sought to acquire a big chunk of land for development by private colonizers. Most of the land owners submitted objections taking the issues of raising construction, environment, forest, periphery Act etc. All the objections were rejected and notification under section 6 of the Act was issued on 28.11.2007, Annexure P.2. About 56 persons affec
Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board & Ors. v. T.T. Murali Babu
Durga Prashad v. Chief Controller of Imports and Exports
Collector (LA) v. Katiji(1987) 2 SCC 107
Dehri Rohtas Light Railway Co.Ltd. v. District Board, Bhojpur
Municipal Council, Ahmednagar and another v. Shah Hyder Beig and others
State of M.P. v. Nandalal Jaiswal
State of Maharashtra v. Digambar
Shankara Coop. Housing Society Ltd. v. M. Prabhakar
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.