Back
SURESHWAR THAKUR, KULDEEP TIWARI
Ansal Township Infrastructure Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
State of Haryana – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. the petitioners are accused of engaging in deceitful practices. (Para 1 , 5) |
| 2. the judicial actions initiated due to unlawful encroachments. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 6 , 10) |
| 3. grounds for quashing the acquisition notifications. (Para 8 , 9) |
| 4. details of acquisition proceedings and subsequent sales. (Para 12 , 14) |
| 5. legal standing and the implications of void transactions. (Para 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27) |
| 6. awareness of acquisition proceedings and subsequent claims. (Para 28 , 30) |
| 7. deliberations on unutilized acquired lands and their de-notification. (Para 32 , 33 , 34) |
| 8. the petition is dismissed due to material concealment. (Para 38 , 39) |
JUDGMENT
Mr. Kuldeep Tiwari, J.
The petitioners have deviously woven a web of artificial illegality, entangling the acquisition proceedings, which were lawfully terminated circa in the early 1970s, i.e. approx. 5 decades back. To the judicial conscience of this Court, the instant writ petition appears to be an ill-advised motion replete with a plethora of infirmities, as it proffers an intrepid venture of the petitioners, which emits a smell of foul play, besides, it also divulges the scandalous and unholy nexus prevailing inter se bu
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
