AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Advocates
Judges
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Advocates
Judges

    Vijay Latka And Others Petitioners v. State Of Haryana And Others S

    M.M Kumar, J.:— The instant petition is directed against acquisition proceedings initiated by issuance of notification dated 11.11.2002 (Annexure P.2) under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for brevity ‘the Act’), declaration dated 7.11.2003 (Annexure P.4) issued under Section 6 of the Act and award dated 31.10.2005 (Annexure P.10). The petitioners have also prayed that any subsequent proceedings in pursuance to the aforementioned notification be also set aside.

    2. It is pertinent to mention that the instant petition has been filed on 16.3.2006 which is after the passing of award. A large number of writ petitions arising out of the afore-mentioned acquisition proceedings have been pending before this Court. On the statement made by the learned State Counsel, we had asked the Director, Urban Estates, Panchkula to consider the case of the petitioners in the light of the policy of the State dated 26.10.2007 In pursuance to the statement made by the learned State counsel, the Director Urban Estates, Panchkula has considered the case of the petitioners and has concluded that the land of the petitioners cannot be recommended for release because there is a ‘C’ class structure for carrying the business of Plantation and Agriculture on a portion of the land and the rest of the land is vacant. Accordingly, the land has been recommended for acquisition. It is further pertinent to notice that even otherwise the writ petitioner is not entitled to any relief as the instant petition was filed after the announcement of the award as already noticed in the preceding para. It is well settled that no writ petition is maintainable after the announcement of award as has been held by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the cases of Star Wire (India) Ltd. v. State of Haryana (1996) 11 SCC 698, Municipal Council Ahmednagar v. Shah Hyder Beig (2000) 2 SCC 48, C. Padma v. Dy. Secretary to the Government of Tamil Nadhu (1997) 2 SCC 627 and Swaika Properties Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Rajasthan JT 2008 (2) SC 280.

    3. For the reasons afore-mentioned this petition fails and the same is accordingly dismissed.

    Use AI to get other relevant cases.

    Comments

    Vijay Latka And Others Petitioners v. State Of Haryana And Others S
    (May 1, 2008)