Back
G. S. SANDHAWALIA, HARPREET KAUR JEEWAN
Rohtash – Appellant
Versus
State of Hrayana – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenge to land acquisition notifications. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. previous litigation regarding land acquisition. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. state's denial of compensation claims. (Para 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 4. concealment of facts affects legal standing. (Para 9) |
| 5. rights under section 101-a and public purpose. (Para 10 , 11) |
| 6. writ petition dismissed without costs. (Para 12) |
JUDGMENT
G.S. Sandhawalia, J.
Challenge in the present writ petition by the present petitioners who are eight in number and legal heirs of deceased Sultan Singh is to the notifications issued under Section 4 & 6 of the LAND ACQUISITION ACT , 1894 (for short 1894 Act') dated 06.05.1992 (Annexure P-2) and 05.05.1993 (Annexure P-3), respectively alongwith Award dated 17.11.1994 (Annexure P-4). Resultant relief is sought for release of the land from acquisition in terms of the policy of Haryana Government dated 14.09.2018 (Annexure P-5) having been framed under Section 101A of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (for short 2013 Act').
2. As per the pleadings, the petitioners are the owners in possession of the land falling in village Mouza Patti Mus
Once possession is taken and an award is passed, challenges to land acquisition proceedings are not maintainable, and remedies for compensation must be sought through reference proceedings.
The judgment establishes the importance of physical possession and disbursement of compensation in determining the lapsing of acquisition proceedings under the 2013 Act.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
