SURESHWAR THAKUR, KULDEEP TIWARI
Satnam Singh – Appellant
Versus
State of Haryana – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenge to land acquisition legality. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. discussion on relevant legal precedents. (Para 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. details of the acquisition process. (Para 7 , 8) |
| 4. background of the petitioners' claims. (Para 9) |
| 5. petitioners' arguments and grievances. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15) |
| 6. court's legal analysis. (Para 16 , 17) |
| 7. court's application of relevant laws. (Para 18 , 19 , 20 , 21) |
| 8. public versus private interests. (Para 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28) |
| 9. final reasoning against petitioners’ claims. (Para 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33) |
| 10. conclusion and implications for future. (Para 34 , 35 , 36) |
| 11. final orders and directions of the court. (Para 37) |
JUDGMENT
Sureshwar Thakur, J.
Since all the above mentioned writ petitions arise from a common notification of acquisition besides when common questions of law and facts are involved thereins, therefore, all the above mentioned writ petitions are taken up together for disposal.
2. Petitioner No.2 in CWP-17464-2007 on the strength of a collaboration agreement dated 2.4.2004 (admittedly entered after issuance of a declaration under Section 6 of the LAND ACQUISITION ACT , 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Ac
Aflatoon v. Lt. Governor of Delhi
Allahabad Development Authority v. Nasiruzzaman
Avadh Behari Yadav v. State of Bihar
C. Padma v. Dy. Secretary to Govt. of Tamil Nadu
Central Inland Water Transport Corporation Limited v. Brojo Nath Ganguly
Dedicated Freight Corridor Corporation of India v. Subodh Singh
Government of Andhra Pradesh v. Syed Akbar
Har Narain (Dead) by LRs. v. Mam Chand (Dead) by LRs.
Indore Development Authority v. Manohar Lal
Jaipur Development Authority v. Mahavir Housing Coop. Society, Jaipur
Lt Governor of Himachal Pradesh v. Shri. Avinash Sharma
M. Ramalinga Thevar v. State of Tamil Nadu
Meera Sahni v. Lieutenant Governor of Delhi
Monnet Ispat and Energy Limited v. Union of India
Municipal Council, Ahmednagar v. Shah Hyder Beig
Northern Indian Glass Industries v. Jaswant Singh
Rajasthan Housing Board v. Shri. Kishan
Satendra Prasad Jain v. State of U.P. 1993 (3) RRR. 597
Secretary, Jaipur Development Authority
Sneh Prabha v. State of Uttar Pradesh AIR 1996 SC 540
State of Haryana v. M/s Vinod Oil Mills 2014 (15) SCC 410
State of Madhya Pradesh v. V.P. Sharma
State of T.N v. L. Krishnan 1996 (1) SCC 250
U.P. Jal Nigam, Lucknow through its Chairman v. Kalra Properties (P) Ltd., Lucknow
Union of India v. Shiv Kumar Bhargava (1995) 2 SCC 427
Post-acquisition, landowners cannot enter into valid agreements regarding the acquired land, as the public interest served by the acquisition prevails over private benefits, rendering such agreements....
Even though there is no period of limitation for filing petitions under Articles 32 and 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner should approach the Court without loss of time and if there is delay, t....
The power of eminent domain allows the State to lawfully acquire land for public purposes, superseding individual claims of legitimate expectation, especially when justified by ecological and urban p....
The court emphasized the importance of timely challenges to acquisition proceedings and the consequences of delay and laches in approaching the court.
Acquisition proceedings that have attained finality, with compensation paid and possession taken, cannot be challenged after a significant delay. Furthermore, the transfer of acquired land between st....
The importance of public purpose in land acquisition, the conclusive and binding effect of previous orders, and the impact of delays and laches in approaching the court.
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.