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 2, Cited by 1]

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Usha Yadav & Another vs State Of Haryana And Others on 17 December, 2008

Author: Jora Singh

Bench: Jora Singh

Civil Writ Petition No.17062 of 2008          1

           IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
                        AT CHANDIGARH.

                                 Civil Writ Petition No.17062 of 2008
                                 Decided on         :      17.12.2008

Usha Yadav & another
                                                   ....Petitioners

                          Versus

State of Haryana and others.
                                                   ....Respondents.

                   ****

CORAM:HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.M.KUMAR.

HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JORA SINGH.

**** Present: Mr.Jagat Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Mr.Ashish Kapoor, Addl. A.G., Haryana, for respondents No.1 to 4.

Mr.Dheeraj Chawla, Advocate, for respondent No.5.

****

1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers 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. M.M.Kumar, J The petitioner have approached this Court for quashing the impugned notifications dated 08.06.2007 and 27.02.2008 (Annexures P-7 and P-8), issued under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for brevity 'the Act) whereby the Government has sought to acquire the land for public purpose namely for extension of Industrial Growth in village Civil Writ Petition No.17062 of 2008 2 Rudh, Chirahara, Banipur, Bawal, Tehsil Bawal, District Rewari.

On 25.09.2008, notice of motion was issued to the respondents and this Court has stayed dispossession, till the next date of hearing. Thereafter the matter was taken up for hearing on 22.10.2008 and 10.12.2008.

At the hearing today, learned counsel for respondent No.5 has stated that the respondents have considered the question of releasing the land of the writ petitioners from acquisition. He has further stated that the land belonging to the petitioners has been fully released.

Learned counsel for the petitioners does not dispute the afore- mentioned factual position. However, learned counsel for the petitioners has prayed that the writ petition be disposed of as having been rendered infructuous in respect of the land of the petitioners.

In view of the above, the present writ petition has been rendered infructuous and is disposed of as such.




                                                    (M.M.KUMAR)
                                                       JUDGE



December 17, 2008                                   (JORA SINGH)
mamta-II                                                JUDGE