Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 6 of 6 (0.32 seconds)
State Of Haryana And Anr. vs S.D. Processors Pvt. Ltd. And Anr. on 26 October, 2004 cites

Ashok Kumar Yadav And Ors. Etc. Etc vs State Of Haryana And Ors. Etc. Etc on 10 May, 1985

11. Shri Jaswant Singh, learned Senior Deputy Advocate General, Haryana submitted that order dated July 7, 1994 passed by the learned Single Judge in Civil Writ Petition No. 17401 of 1991 is liable to be quashed because the reasons assigned by him for quashing the acquisition of the. respondents' land are legally untenable. He pointed out that as per the recommendations made by the Committee and the authorities of the Urban Estates Department, the government had released 2 bighas and 6 biswas (1988 square meters) of land of the respondents despite the fact that at the time of issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act, only 683 square meters was covered by construction and additional construction of 311 square meters had been raised during the pendency of the acquisition proceedings. He then argued that the observation made by the learned Single Judge that the respondents will not be in a position to run the mill due to lack of space is based on surmises and pure conjectures because no evidence was produced by them to show that 994 square meters of open land was not sufficient for running the mill. Sh. Jaswant Singh referred to the orders passed by the learned Single Judges in other writ petitions as well as orders dated 15.1.2004 passed by the Division Bench in L.P.A. No. 885 of 1995-Arjan Dev and Ors. v. State of Haryana and Anr., and L.P.A. No. 434 of 1995-Ashok Kumar and Ors. v. State of Haryana and Ors., and argued that the order impugned in L.P.A. No. 16 of 1995 should be set aside because the same would frustrate the purpose of acquisition. He emphasised that the government had taken a policy decision to release the land of the industrial units alongwith proportionate open area and no discrimination was practised qua the respondents and, therefore, the learned Single Judge was not justified in quashing the acquisition of their land ignoring the fact that 2 bighas and 6 biswas of land had been released from acquisition.
Supreme Court of India Cites 11 - Cited by 998 - P N Bhagwati - Full Document
1