Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 1, Cited by 1]

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Richhpal Singh And Others vs State Of Haryana And Others on 28 January, 2009

Bench: Adarsh Kumar Goel, Jitendra Chauhan

       IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

                          CHANDIGARH.


                                          C.W.P. No.9276 of 2008
                                        Date of decision: 28.1.2009

Richhpal Singh and others.
                                                     -----Petitioners
                                Vs.
State of Haryana and others.
                                                  -----Respondents


CORAM:- HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL
            HON'BLE MR JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN

Present:-   Ms. Sharmila Sharma, Advocate
            for the petitioners.

            Mr. Ashish Kapoor, Addl.A.G., Haryana.
                 -----

ORDER:

1. This petition seeks quashing of notifications dated 11.4.2007 and 20.12.2007 under Sections 4 and 6 respectively of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, "the Act"), acquiring the land of the petitioners for expansion and systemic development of Tourism Complex at Karan Lake at Karnal.

2. Objection of the petitioners is that the acquisition is without following the procedure under Chapter VII of the Act in the light of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Devinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and others (2008) 1 SCC

261. C.W.P. No.9276 of 2008 2

3. In the reply filed on behalf of the State, it has been stated that the acquired land is most suited for the public purpose and the alternative suggested by the petitioners was not viable.

4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

5. Learned counsel for the State submitted that the impugned notifications have been issued for public purpose and not for company. The judgment of the Hon'ble Suprme Court in Devinder Singh and others (supra) is not applicable. He also referred to site plan Annexure R-III to show that the acquired land is contiguous to the existing Tourism Complex, which is sought to be expanded.

6. There being no material to show that the decision for acquisition is arbitrary or malafide, we do not find any ground to interfere with impugned notifications.

7. The petition is dismissed.


                                         ( ADARSH KUMAR GOEL )
                                                  JUDGE


January 28, 2009                         ( JITENDRA CHAUHAN )
ashwani                                           JUDGE