IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
SURESHWAR THAKUR, SUKHVINDER KAUR, JJ.
Dhanraj (Deceased) & Ors. – Petitioners
Versus
The State of Haryana & Ors. – Respondents
CWP NO. 1897 of 1994 (O&M)
Decided On : 10-04-2024
JUDGMENT
Mr. Sureshwar Thakur, J.
Through the instant writ petition, the petitioners ask for quashing of a notification dated 27.03.1992 (Annexure P-2), as became issued by respondent No.1, thus under sections 4 and 17 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act of 1894"). Furthermore, a prayer is also made for the quashing of a notification No.14/38/91-EDU-1(3) dated 24.02.1993 (Annexure P-3), as became issued under Section 6 of the Act of 1894.
Grounds Of Challenge
2. The learned Senior counsel for the petitioners contends, that the notification (supra), as became issued through invocation of the urgency provisions embodied in Section 17 of the Act of 1894, though were for a public purpose, namely for the construction of cycle stand, canteen and play grounds of Government College, Bawal, Tehsil Bawal, District Rewari, but he submits that the said notification is colour ably issued and/or is whimsically issued.
3. The learned Senior counsel for the petitioners contends, that on the subject lands, the petitioners have installed a saw mill, and, have also constructed several shops on the main road i.e. Sawan road which is connected to Delhi Jaipur National highway. He further submits, that they have also raised shops on Jaipur National highway. The constructions (supra), are averred to be raised on the subject lands prior to the issuance of a notification under Section 4 of the Act of 1894. In addition, learned Senior counsel also submits, that the petitioners have a samadhi of their ancestors thus existing on the subject lands.
4. That since the respondent has invoked the urgency statutory provisions, as embodied in Section 17 of the Act of 1894, provisions whereof are extracted hereafter, therefore the petitioners contend that since in terms of sub-Section 4 there of, rather the provisions of Section 5-A carried in the Act of 1894, are not made applicable, upon, invocation of the statutory urgency provisions (supra).
Anand Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh
Darshan Lal Nagpal v. Govt. (NCT of Delhi)
The invocation of urgency provisions in land acquisition must be justified by genuine emergencies; significant delays undermine such claims and violate the right to object.
The invocation of the urgency provision u/s 17 (4) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, to dispense with the enquiry u/s 5-A of the Act, is not justified in cases where the acquisition is for an indust....
Delay is fatal in questioning land acquisition proceedings, and courts cannot invalidate acquisition which stood concluded due to delay and laches.
Failure to specify public purpose in a land acquisition notification renders it void ab initio.
The court established that non-compliance with Section 5A of the Land Acquisition Act invalidates acquisition proceedings, emphasizing the necessity of adhering to principles of natural justice.
The invocation of the urgency clause under Section 17 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, is justified when the government demonstrates a pressing need, and such subjective satisfaction is generally n....
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.