Back
SURESHWAR THAKUR, KULDEEP TIWARI
Pawan Singh – Appellant
Versus
State of Haryana – Respondent
JUDGMENT
Kuldeep Tiwari, J.
The petitioners in both petitions seek quashing of the same notifications, on the same grounds, therefore, both the petitions are being heard together for disposal. However, for the sake of brevity, the facts are being taken up from CWP No. 13314 of 2004.
2. The present writ petitions have been filed by the petitioners for quashing of the notification under Section 4 of the LAND ACQUISITION ACT , 1894 (in short, the Act of 1894) dated 17.4.2002, whereby the land acquisition authority sought to acquire 1326.04 acres of land, for the purpose of residential, commercial and institutional for Sector 1(Part) 10- 11(Part), 12 and 13 Bahadurgarh, under the Haryana Urban Development Authority, further declaration was made under Section 6 of the Act of 1894 on 10.4.2003 for acquiring about 1239.05 acres of land and notice was issued under Section 9 of the Act of 1894, on the ground of discrimination and notifications (supra) are not in consonance with the provisions of National Capital Region Planning Board Act No. 2 of 1985 (in short, the Act of 1985) and was in contravention of National Capital Regional Plan of 2001.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitte
The court established that failure to notify landowners and to take possession in accordance with the law invalidates the land acquisition process.
Land Acquisition - Process of acquisition was completed way back in the year 1987-88. The petitioners have even received the compensation and did not raise any objection immediately thereafter. They ....
The court established that land acquired for public purpose cannot be restored to the original owners once possession is taken, regardless of subsequent non-utilization.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the acceptance of the acquisition and the award by the writ petitioners, along with the possession of the acquired land and the entitlement to....
Section 48(1) of the Act and in view of the well settled legal position emerging from interpretation of Section 48(1) of the Act by the Supreme Court, it is clear as noon day, that since possession o....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the acquisition proceedings would not lapse even if the award was passed after the prescribed period under Section 11A, and the relocation pol....
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
