Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 7 of 7 (0.47 seconds)Maya Devi And Ors vs State Of Haryana on 26 September, 2017
Learned counsel for the claimant/landowners submit that the
Reference Court erred in ignoring the sale deed, dated 12.11.1997 (Ex.P-1),
vide which an area measuring 4K-17M, which also formed part of the same
revenue estate, i.e. village Badopal, was alienated at Rs.1,20,000/- per acre.
He submits that even though the said sale deed was executed post
notification under Section 4, in the present proceedings, but yet it could be
relied upon by applying an appropriate/suitable reverse cut. Further it is
urged that as the purpose of acquisition was; construction of Badopal Left
Minor, as a result of the acquisition the landholdings of most of the
2 of 7
::: Downloaded on - 30-09-2017 02:01:03 :::
RFA-1145-2004 (O&M) 3
& connected matters
claimant/landowners stood bifurcated into two parts. He asserts that for the
un-acquired land of the claimant/landowners could not be put to its optimum
use any longer, the Reference Court ought to have awarded at least 50% of
the market value of the acquired land as compensation on account of
severance. Reliance is placed upon decisions of this Court in State of
Punjab v. Mohan Lal, 1997 (3) R.C.R. (Civil) 693; State of Haryana and
another v. Sudarshan Kumar and others, 2017 (1) R.C.R. (Civil) 478;
and State of Haryana and another v. Santokh Singh and others (RFA No.
3356 of 2010, decided on 05.05.2016).
Darshana Devi And Ors vs State Of Haryana And Ors on 11 May, 2016
In view of the abovesaid undisputed fact situation obtaining in
the present case, instant appeal is ordered to be disposed of, in terms of the
order dated 01.03.2016 passed by this Court in Sudarshan Kumar's case
(supra).
Sudarshan Kumar And Ors vs State Of Haryana And Ors on 11 May, 2016
In view of the abovesaid undisputed fact situation obtaining in
the present case, instant appeal is ordered to be disposed of, in terms of the
order dated 01.03.2016 passed by this Court in Sudarshan Kumar's case
(supra).
Sunil Kumar Deceased Through Lrs vs State Of Haryana & Ors on 19 September, 2016
RFA-3839-2016 For, the learned counsel for the parties are ad idem that the matter in issue is squarely covered by the decision rendered by this court in Sudarshan Kumar's case (supra), the present appeal is disposed of in the same terms. However, the appellants shall not be entitled to interest for the period of delay in filing the appeal i.e. 819 days.
Ram Kumar vs State Of Haryana & Anr on 26 May, 2016
In view of the abovesaid common stand taken by learned counsel for
the parties, instant appeal is ordered to be disposed of in terms of the order dated
1.3.2016 passed in Sudharshan Kumar's case (supra).
Mamo Devi @ Mam Kaur @ Mano vs State Of Haryana And Ors on 19 July, 2018
Present writ petition has been filed under Article 226/227 of
the Constitution of India seeking direction to the respondents to pay the
compensation of the acquired land at par in view of the judgement dated
01.03.2016 (Annexure P-4) passed in RFA No.6989 of 2014 titled State
of Haryana and another Vs. Sudarshan Kumar and others.
1