SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2023 Supreme(P&H) 2229

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
SURESHWAR THAKUR, KULDEEP TIWARI, JJ.
Hari Singh Katarya & Ors. – Petitioners
Versus
State of Haryana & Ors. – Respondents
CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 12703 of 2023
Decided On : 17-08-2023

Advocates Appeared:
Mr. Sandeep Sharma, Advocate; For the Petitioners
Mr. Ankur Mittal, Addl. Advocate General, Haryana with Mr. Saurabh Mago, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana.

Headnote:(A) Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 - Section 101A - Petitioners sought mandamus for decision on application for release of land from acquisition. Respondent's order declining application issued, rendering petition infructuous. (Paras 1, 2)

Findings of Court:
The competent authority has passed an order in compliance with the Supreme Court's directions, leading to the dismissal of the petition as infructuous.

Issues: The key issue was whether the respondent State had taken appropriate action on the petitioners' application for land release.

Ratio Decidendi: The court determined that due process was followed as the competent authority issued a speaking order, thus rendering the petition without merit.

Result: Petition dismissed as having rendered infructuous.

Table of Content
1. petitioners rely on supreme court directions. (Para 1)
2. application declined; petition rendered infructuous. (Para 2)
3. dismissal of the petition. (Para 3)

JUDGMENT

Mr. Kuldeep Tiwari, J.

The petitioners while placing reliance upon the order dated 20.4.2021, passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, in SLP No. 5703 of 2021, wherein, specific directions were given to the respondent-State to take formal decision upon application preferred by the petitioners under Section 101A of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (for short, 'the Act of 2013') from the date of receipt of such application and communicate the same to them, within three months. The petitioners have filed the present petition, as no such decision has been taken by the competent authority concerned. They have prayed for issuance of writ of mandamus directing the respondent-Authority to consider their application for releasing the petition land(s) under Section 101A of the Act of 2013, from acquisition.

2. Notice was issued to the respondent-State. Today, the learned Additional Advocate General, Haryana, has placed on record, speaking order dated 3.8.2023, passed by the Chairperson-cum-Zonal Administrator, HSVP-cum-Additional Director, Urban Estate Gurugram, whereby the application moved by the petitioners stands declined. Since the order has already been passed by the competent authority, in compliance with the order passed by Hon'ble the Supreme Court, therefore, the present petition has been rendered infructuous.

3. Dismissed as having rendered infructuous.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top