IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Regular First Appeal No. 4357 of 2011(O&M) Date of Decision: October 21, 2011. Smt. Shakuntla. ...... APPELLANT (s) Versus State of Haryana and others. ...... RESPONDENT (s) CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr. Shailendra Jain, Advocates for the appellant. Mr. Ashish Kapoor, Addl.A.G., Haryana. for respondents no.1 and 2. Mr. Dhiraj Chawla, Advocate for respondent no.3-HSIDC. *****
RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral)
CM No.9660-CI of 2011
Heard.
Notice of the application.
Mr. Ashish Kapoor, Additional Advocate General, Haryana
accepts notice on behalf of respondents no.1 and 2 and Mr. Dhiraj Chawla,
Advocate, who is present in the court accepts notice on behalf of respondent
no.3-HSIDC.
RFA No.4357 of 2011 2
Hence, taking into consideration the facts mentioned in the
application accompanied by affidavit, delay of 338 days in filing the appeal
is, hereby, condoned.
Civil Misc. stands disposed of.
CM No.9659-CI of 2011
The application is allowed subject to all just exceptions.
RFA No.4357 of 2011
The present regular first appeal has been filed against award
dated 27.01.2010 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Gurgaon vide
which reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for
short the ‘Act’) filed by the present appellant was decided.
It has been contended by learned counsel for the appellant that
land belonging to other land owners was also acquired by the same
notification dated 06.03.2002 issued under Section 4 of the Act for setting up
of Industrial Model Township, Manesar Phase II and the same was
subsequently followed by notification dated 15.11.2002 under Section 6 of
the Act. It is further contended that the appeals filed by the other land
owners against the same award dated 27.01.2010 passed by learned
Additional District Judge, Gurgaon were decided by this Court vide judgment
dated 11.02.2011 passed in RFA No.2373 of 2010, titled as Madan Pal v.
State of Haryana. Hence, it is contended that this appeal be also decided on
the same terms.
These facts have also not been disputed by learned counsel for
the respondents.
RFA No.4357 of 2011 3
Hence, for the detailed reasons recorded in RFA No. 2373 of
2010, titled as Madan Pal v. State of Haryana, the present appeal is also
disposed of on the same terms.
( RAM CHAND GUPTA )
October 21, 2011. JUDGE
‘om’