High Court Punjab-Haryana High Court

Jai Narain And Others vs State Of Haryana And Others on 26 November, 2008

Punjab-Haryana High Court
Jai Narain And Others vs State Of Haryana And Others on 26 November, 2008
C.W.P.No. 17844 of 2004.                 1

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
               CHANDIGARH.

                               C.W.P.No. 17844 of 2004.
                               Date of Decision : 26.11.2008.



Jai Narain and others
                                         Petitioners.

                    VERSUS

State of Haryana and others.
                                         Respondents.


CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.KUMAR.
          HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JORA SINGH.
                    ---
Present:- Mr. Shailendra Jain, Advocate, for
          the petitioner(s).

           Ms. Palika Monga, Assistant Advocate
           General, Haryana.

          Mr. R.S.Longia, Advocate, for
          Mr. Arun Walia, Advocate, for HUDA.
                  ---

         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 petitioners have prayed for quashing

notifications issued under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land

Acquisition Act, 1894 on 14.8.2003 (Annexure P-2) and

10.4.2004(Annexure P-9). Their principal ground of challenge

is that they have raised ‘A’ class residential houses. The

construction is, however, admitted to be class ‘B’ and is

conceded to be raised before Section 4 notification is almost
C.W.P.No. 17844 of 2004. 2

all the cases. The Director Urban Estate, Haryana has

submitted his report dated 26.9.2008 which is available on

the file of C.W.P.No. 14769 of 2006.

Learned counsel for the petitioners state that as

per instructions given to him land of all the petitioners

stand released from acquisition in accordance with the

recommendation made by the Director because there are built

up area on the land. However, it is pointed out that in the

report of the Director, some of the names have not been

correctly mentioned which would not make difference for the

purpose of disposal of the writ petition. According to the

report of the Director, the proportionate area has also been

released from acquisition which would amount to the area

equivalent to the constructed released area.

Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of.




                                    (M.M.KUMAR )
                                        JUDGE


26.11.2008                             ( JORA SINGH)
Anoop                                       JUDGE