SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(Online)(SC) 12625

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
BANWARI AND OTHERS vs. HARYANA STATE INDUSTRIAL AND INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED (HSIIDC) AND ANOTHER


J U D G M E N T

B.R. GAVAI, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. This appeal challenges the judgment and order dated 25th November 2021 passed by the learned Single Judge of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in CWP No. 19814 of 2021 (O&M), whereby the writ petition filed by respondent No.1 under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India praying for a writ of certiorari for Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by NARENDRA PRASAD Date: 2024.12.10 quashing the order passed by the District Revenue Officer-

Reason:

cum-Land Acquisition Collector, Jhajjar (hereinafter referred to as “LAC”) dated 15th September 2020, came to be allowed.

3. The facts, in brief, giving rise to the present appeal are as under:

3.1 By a notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as “1894 Act”) dated 17th November 2004, the land of the appellants admeasuring 8 Kanal 17 Marla of village Majri, Tehsil Bahadurgarh, District Jhajjar was acquired for Kundli Manesar Palwal Expressway. By an award dated 1st March 2006, a compensation of Rs.12,50,000/- per acre was determined.

3.2 Aggrieved by the said award, similarly circumstanced land-owners preferred a reference for

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

BALWAN SINGH AND ORS. Vs GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANR - 2025 Supreme(Online)(Del) 2338: Haryana State Industrial and Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited (HSIIDC) and Another (supra). ... Haryana State Industrial and Infrastructure Development Corporation (HSIIDC) and Another

**Explanation**: The treatment of this case is unclear and ambiguous. The provided text only includes the case citation with "(supra)", which indicates it is being referred to as a prior authority in the current decision, but no explicit judicial treatment patterns (e.g., followed, distinguished, overruled, reversed) are mentioned. There are no keywords or phrases indicating any specific treatment, positive or negative. The ellipsis ("...") suggests potential additional context was omitted, making it impossible to determine the treatment objectively from the given information. Therefore, it is categorized as uncertain.

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top