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 3, Cited by 10]

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Daljeet Singh And Others vs The State Of Haryana And Others on 27 September, 2013

Bench: Surya Kant, Surinder Gupta

                                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
                                                  CHANDIGARH

                                                Civil Writ Petition No.21527 of 2013
                                                Date of Decision: September 27, 2013

                      Daljeet Singh and others                                   ....Petitioners
                            Versus
                      The State of Haryana and others                    ......Respondents

                      CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT.
                              HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURINDER GUPTA.

                      Present : Mr.Ashish Aggarwal, Senior Advocate with
                                Mr.Kulwant Singh, Advocate, for the petitioners.
                                Mr.S.S.Patter, Sr.DAG, Hry, for respondent Nos.1 to 3
                                           ---

                      1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the
                         judgment?
                      2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?
                      3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

                      Surya Kant, J. (Oral)

Notice of motion to respondent Nos.1 to 3 only. On our asking, Mr.S.S.Patter, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Haryana, accepts notice on their behalf.

Let three copies of the writ petition be supplied to the learned State counsel during the course of day failing which this order shall be automatically recalled and the writ petition shall be deemed to have been dismissed for non- prosecution.

In view of the nature of order which we propose to pass, neither there is any necessity to seek counter-reply from respondent Nos.1 to 3 nor respondent No.4 is required to be served at this stage.

The petitioners seek quashing of the notifications dated 2.1.2002 (Annexure P-2) and 24.12.2002 (Annexure P-3) issued under Sections 4 & 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, Kumar Mohinder 2013.10.24 14:46 I attest to the accuracy of this order Chandigarh CWP No.21527 of 2013 [2] respectively, as well as the speaking order dated 07.08.2012 (Annexure P-13) passed by the Director General, Urban Estates and Town & Country Planning Department, Haryana, in purported compliance of the order dated 09.09.2008 passed by a Division Bench of this Court in a bunch of writ petitions where the above-mentioned notifications were under challenge.

During the course of hearing learned counsel for the parties are ad-idem that claim of the petitioners can be considered and disposed of by the authorities in the light of the order dated 21.08.2013 passed by this Court in CWP No.21223 of 2012 (Baljit Singh and another versus State of Haryana and others). That case also pertained to the same acquisition and point(s) involved were also somewhat similar.

Ordered accordingly.

Dasti.



                                                                       (SURYA KANT)
                                                                             JUDGE


                      September 27, 2013                          (SURINDER GUPTA)
                           Mohinder                                          JUDGE




Kumar Mohinder
2013.10.24 14:46
I attest to the accuracy of this
order
Chandigarh