Back
PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH
VIKAS SURI
Bhawar Singh – Appellant
Versus
State Of Haryana – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Sureshwar Thakur, J.
Through the instant writ petition, the petitioners seek a writ in the nature of certiorari for declaring the notification No. Leg. 26/2022 dated 23.8.2022 issued vide Haryana Act No. 26 of 2022 under the Haryana Dholidar, Butimar, Bhondedar and Muqararidar (Vesting of Proprietary Rights) Amendment Act, 2018, to be null, void and ultra vires the Constitution of India, as the said amendment has been affected retrospectively. Furthermore, the petitioners also sought the quashing of the letter dated 10.10.2022 issued by respondent No. 2, wherebys all the rights vested in the Dholidars have been declared illegal/ab initio.
2. It is averred in the instant petition that one Jamna Dutt and one Madan Gopal sons of Padam Nath were in possession of land measuring 82 kanals comprised in khewat No. 692, khata No. 895, khasra No. 141 min (82-0) situated in village Didwara, Tehsil Safidon, District Jind, since time immemorial, thus being recorded as Dholidars. It is further averred thereins that by virtue of Section 3 of the Haryana Act No. 1 of 2011 (for short 'the Act of 2011'), nomenclatured as Haryana Dholidar, Butimar, Bhondedar and Muqararidar (Vesting of Propri
A law that extinguishes leasehold rights without providing constitutionally adequate compensation violates rights under Article 31-A.
Sub-section (2) of section 7 of impugned Act reads amount payable under sub-section (1) shall be 500 times of lease rental as is evidenced in records.
The omission of provisions regarding ownership rights over lands affected by river action was declared unconstitutional, violating property rights under Article 300A of the Constitution.
The court reaffirmed that lands reserved for common purposes should not revert to proprietors unless formally reallocated, emphasizing established precedents in land management law.
The court affirmed that land recorded as Abadi under the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950, remains vested in the State, allowing for resumption under Section 117(6) despite claims ....
State legislation cannot provide lesser compensation than that guaranteed under parliamentary law, rendering it repugnant and unconstitutional.
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
