Narinder Kumar Bajaj vs State Of Haryana

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(P&H) 507

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
SURESHWAR THAKUR, VIKAS SURI
Narinder Kumar Bajaj – Appellant
Versus
State Of Haryana – Respondent

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. Ish Karan Singh Chhabra, Advocate for Mr. A.D.S. Sukhija, Advocate
For the Respondent:Mr. Rajinder Goel, Advocate Mr. Ankur Mittal, Addl. A.G., Haryana, Ms. Svaneel Jaswal, Addl. A.G., Haryana, Mr. P.P.Chahar, Sr. DAG, Haryana, Mr. Saurabh Mago, DAG, Haryana, Mr. Gaurav Bansal, DAG, Haryana and Mr. Karan Jindal, Asstt. A.G., Haryana.

JUDGMENT :

Sureshwar Thakur, J.

Through the instant petition, the petitioners challenge the validity of a notification, as became issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter for short called as the 'Act of 1894'). Moreover, the petitioners also make a challenge to the validity of issuance of a notification under Section 6 of the 'Act of 1894' besides to the consequent thereto award, thus on the ground, that the issuance of the notification(s) (supra) is a colourable exercise of power and are also discriminatory in nature.

2. The above notification(s) became respectively issued on 23.02.1989 (Annexure P-1) and on 22.02.1990 (Annexure P-3).

3. When the instant writ petition came up for hearing on 05.08.2024, the hereinafter extracted order was passed. It is pointed out that application for amending the writ petition bearing CM-31475-2001 was ordered to be heard alongwith main case, vide order dated 23.05.2003. Mr. Goel has referred to Annexure P-4 to point out that the land had been released on 15.12.2009, after the passing of the award on 21.02.1992 (Annexure P5) and in the case of petitioner No.l on 17.11.1994. It is, thus, submitted that since the case is bas