Back
G. S. SANDHAWALIA, GURBIR SINGH
Mayur Gupta – Appellant
Versus
State of Haryana – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. claim for land de-notification (Para 1 , 4 , 10) |
| 2. right to approach for land de-notification (Para 2 , 7) |
| 3. court's observations on petitioners' claims (Para 3 , 5 , 8 , 12) |
| 4. challenges regarding land acquisition proceedings (Para 6 , 9) |
| 5. no vested right for de-notification (Para 11) |
| 6. writ petition dismissed (Para 13) |
JUDGMENT
G.S. Sandhawalia, J.
Petitioners seeks a declaration that the notification dated 15.11.2002 (Annexure P-3) issued under Section 4 of the LAND ACQUISITION ACT , 1894 (for short, the 'Act') followed by the Section 6 notification dated 12.11.2003 (Annexure P-4) along with the award No.2 dated 18.11.2005 passed under Section 11 , has become unviable and non-essential. Resultantly, the claim is for de-notification of the land in question in terms of the provisions of Section 101A of the Right to Fair Compensation & Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation & Resettlement (Haryana Amendment) Act, 2013 (for short the 2013 Act') and the policy framed dated 14.09.2018.
2. Senior Counsel has placed reliance upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Raghubir Singh & another v. State of Haryana & others, 2021 (3) RCR (Civil) 533 to submit that la
The central legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of Section 101A of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, ....
The court affirmed that lands acquired for public purpose cannot be deemed unviable based solely on non-utilization, emphasizing the executive's discretion in assessing public interest.
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
