Back
PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH
G.S.SANDHAWALIA, MEENAKSHI I.MEHTA
Sandeep – Appellant
Versus
State Of Haryana – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
G.S. Sandhawalia J.
The prayer in the present writ petition, filed by the six petitioners under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, is for seeking release of the acquired land on the strength of the Policy dated 14.09.2018 (Annexure P-10) issued under Section 101-A of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (for short 'the Act of 2013').
2. The petitioners are owners of the land bearing khasra No.33//20 (5-8), 33//21 (3-0) as share-holders in village Kanhai District Gurugram (for short 'the land in question'). The land in question was sought to be acquired by the State vide notification dated 20.04.1990 (Annexure P-2) issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, 'the Act of 1894') and subsequent notification dated 18.04.1991 (Annexure P-3) under Section 6 of the Act of 1894. Apparently, the Award was also passed on 23.03.1993 (Annexure P-4) whereby the land of the petitioners was sought to be acquired for the public purposes, i.e residential, commercial and institutional area and recreational zone and open space in Sectors 44, 45 and 46 at Gurgaon and the land stood ves
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.
The court established that land once acquired vests with the State, and claims of non-possession or non-payment do not negate the validity of the acquisition.
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
