Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 313 (1.12 seconds)
Documents citing Hari Ram & Anr vs State Of Haryana & Ors on 11 February, 2010

Meena Sukumaran vs The Special Tahsildar on 29 October, 2020

(c) The Division Bench while confirming the order in the above writ petition quashing the same land acquisition proceedings in respect of other land owners has given liberty to issue fresh proceedings, if needed. But the respondents have not only initiated fresh proceedings but also gone one step further to drop the proceedings even for the land owners who got stay of the acquisition proceedings. Though the petitioners also do have the benefit of stay, the Land Acquisition Proceedings are not dropped. The act of the respondents thus is violative of Arts.14, 19(1), 21 and 300A of the Constitution of India in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Hari Ram and another Vs. State of Haryana and others reported in (2010) 3 SCC 621 and Radhy Shyam (Dead) through LRS.
Madras High Court Cites 19 - Cited by 0 - N Kirubakaran - Full Document

Sri H D Kumaraswamy vs State Of Karnataka on 27 July, 2015

Layout could not have been formed unless the adjacent land was acquired. Therefore, it was well within the power of the Government to denotify the land. The act of denotification was in discharge of official duty. Reliance was placed on the decisions reported in 2010(3) SCC page 621, Hari Ram and another Vs. State of Haryana; AIR 2000 SC page 3403(1) B.A. Basavaiah and others Vs. BDA and others; AIR 2015 SC page 444 M/s Magnum Promoters Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Union of India; ILR 2006 Kar page 318 The Commissioner BDA and others Vs. State of Karnataka; Civil Appeal No.4097/2010 Bondu Rmaswamy and others Vs. BDA. No doubt, the decisions relied upon by the learned Counsel for the petitioner support the contention that section 48 of L.A.Act empowers State to withdraw from acquisition provided possession has not been taken and that the vesting of land under section 16 of the Act presupposes actual taking of possession and till that is done, legal presumption of vesting enshrined in section 16 cannot be raised and that small packet of 77 acquired lands surrounded by lands which were not acquired or which were deleted may be considered for deletion if they are not suitable for forming layouts. In the present case, the fact situation is totally different. The land was acquired, acquisition proceedings were completed, award was passed and possession was taken by drawing mahazar. Inspite of acquisition, the land was sold in favour of accused Nos.5 and 6 through registered sale deeds dated 13.12.2004 for consideration of Rs.43,75,000/- and Rs.47,25,000/-. Subsequently, accused Nos.5 and 6 have sold the land in favour of accused Nos.7 to 15 for consideration of Rs.4,14,00,000/-. On the date of making representation for denotification, the accused Nos.2 to 4 were not the owners of the land and they were not in possession. It is alleged, the act of denotification is the result of conspiracy. The office of Trust has been misused. No public interest was involved. For pecuniary gain denotification has been done. The state has suffered loss. There is factual foundation for the offences alleged.
Karnataka High Court Cites 85 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

S. Jaya Mohan vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 16 December, 2010

In (Hari Ram and another vs. State of Haryana and others) (2010) 3 SCC 621 relied on by the learned senior counsel for the appellant, the lands of more than 40 land owners, who were similarly situated on identical facts and circumstances were released, but the lands of the appellants was not excluded from the purview of acquisition proceedings. It was contended on behalf of the appellants therein that no uniform policy concerning withdrawal of the lands from the acquisition proceedings is being followed and that the same policy was not applied in the case of the land owners whose lands were released. Under those circumstance, the Supreme Court held that the State erred in applying different standards of norms for withdrawal of the lands from the purview of acquisition proceedings, which amounts to discrimination. It was also held that adopting different yardstick against various land owners is legally not sustainable. In the case on hand, the writ petition has not been filed by the land owner, but by the appellant, who is the subsequent purchaser. In this case, the appellant is not seeking any exemption for his lands or he is alleging any discrimination in the matter of application of exemption. The appellant only contends that his possession over the property should not be disturbed by the respondents, that too when admittedly possession was taken over by the respondents, which according to the appellant is only a paper possession. When such being the case, the prayer sought for by the appellant in the writ petition itself is not maintainable. Therefore, the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court cited supra cannot be made applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case.
Madras High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 1 - B Rajendran - Full Document

Ashok Kumar And Another vs State Of Up And 3 Others on 12 September, 2025

8.15 Learned counsel for the petitioners has placed heavy reliance on the judgments of the Supreme Court in Hari Ram & Another vs. State of Haryana & Others (supra), and Shyam Verma vs. Land Acquisition Office (supra). However, both decisions are also of no assistance to the petitioners, as they are clearly distinguishable on facts from the present case.
Allahabad High Court Cites 50 - Cited by 0 - M C Tripathi - Full Document

Prem Rathee vs Uoi Etc on 28 March, 2019

In view of above when the parties to the dispute had agreed that the controversy was covered by the ratio of 'Hari Ram and another vs. State of Haryana and others, (2010) 3 SCC 621', we would dispose of the instant petition in the same terms, particularly, when three Division Benches of this Court in cases tilted as 'Lakhmi Chand and others vs. State of Haryana and another' (CWP No.9281 of 2004 decided on 11.2.2008), 'Reshma Footwears (P) Ltd. vs. State of Haryana and others' (CWP No.2308 of 2004 decided on 21.6.2010) and 'Lehri Singh and others vs. Union of India and others' (CWP no.11412 of 2004 decided on 25.8.2011) have passed orders to the same effect. It is also to be noticed that SLP against these judgments have been dismissed.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next