{"id":89589,"date":"2009-12-07T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-12-06T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-farihills-co-operative-group-vs-state-of-haryana-and-others-on-7-december-2009"},"modified":"2017-07-11T11:01:01","modified_gmt":"2017-07-11T05:31:01","slug":"the-farihills-co-operative-group-vs-state-of-haryana-and-others-on-7-december-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-farihills-co-operative-group-vs-state-of-haryana-and-others-on-7-december-2009","title":{"rendered":"The Farihills Co-Operative Group &#8230; vs State Of Haryana And Others on 7 December, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Punjab-Haryana High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">The Farihills Co-Operative Group &#8230; vs State Of Haryana And Others on 7 December, 2009<\/div>\n<pre>           IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA\n                         AT CHANDIGARH\n\n                   Civil Writ Petition No.9844 of 2001\n                   Date of decision: 7th December, 2009\n\nThe Farihills Co-operative Group Housing Society Ltd.\n                                                                 ... Petitioner\n                                  Versus\nState of Haryana and others\n                                                              ... Respondents\n\nCORAM:      HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA\n\nPresent:    Ms. Amrita Nagpal, Advocate for the petitioner.\n            Mr. Sunil Nehra, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana\n            for the State.\n            None for respondents No.2 and 3.\n\n\nKANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J.\n<\/pre>\n<p>            Present writ petition has been filed seeking a writ in the nature<\/p>\n<p>of certiorari with a prayer that letter dated 11th September, 2000 (Annexure<\/p>\n<p>P-3) issued by the Estate Officer, HUDA, Faridabad, whereby petitioner<\/p>\n<p>Housing Society was called upon to pay to HUDA further amount towards<\/p>\n<p>allotment of the plot as HUDA had paid the enhanced amount of<\/p>\n<p>compensation to the land owners in land acquisition proceedings, be<\/p>\n<p>quashed.\n<\/p>\n<p>            Farihills Co-operative Group Housing Society Limited, 74<\/p>\n<p>Deluxe Apartments, B-5, Vasundhara Enclave was allotted Group Housing<\/p>\n<p>Plot No. GHS-16 in Sector 21-D, Faridabad. The area of plot allotted was<\/p>\n<p>4000 square maters\/1 acre. The plot was allotted on the tentative price of<\/p>\n<p>Rs.79,16,000\/- @ Rs.1979\/- per square meter. The allotment letter<\/p>\n<p>(Annexure P-2) was issued on 31st August, 2000. The impugned notice<\/p>\n<p>(Annexure P-3) was issued on 11th September, 2000, in which the Estate<\/p>\n<p>Officer, HUDA Faridabad had stated that the compensation enhanced in the<\/p>\n<p>land acquisition proceedings qua the land acquired in Sector 21, where the<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\"> Civil Writ Petition No. 9844 of 2001                                          2<\/span><\/p>\n<p>Society was allotted plot, was deposited in the Court for disbursal of payment<\/p>\n<p>to the land owners. After taking into consideration the enhanced<\/p>\n<p>compensation paid along with cost and expenditure of the litigation incurred,<\/p>\n<p>the Society was called upon to pay Rs.29,34,840\/- @ Rs.733.71 per square<\/p>\n<p>meter. This demand was raised in pursuance of condition No.6 of the<\/p>\n<p>allotment letter (Annexure P-2). Condition No.6 of the allotment letter reads<\/p>\n<p>as under:\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>               &#8220;6.    The above price is tentative to the extent that any<br \/>\n       enhancement in the cost of land awarded by the competent<br \/>\n       authority\/ Court under the Land Acquisition Act shall also be<br \/>\n       payable proportionately as determined by the Authority from<br \/>\n       time to time. The additional price determined, shall be paid<br \/>\n       within thirty days of its demand.&#8221;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>               In the writ petition, two-fold grievance has been made. Firstly, it<\/p>\n<p>has been stated that the land was allotted to the petitioner Society in<\/p>\n<p>consonance with the decision of a Court rendered on 15th December, 1997,<\/p>\n<p>therefore, HUDA cannot demand further amount, which they have paid to the<\/p>\n<p>land owners as a result of enhancement in payment of compensation in land<\/p>\n<p>acquisition proceedings. Secondly, it has been stated that this High Court in<\/p>\n<p>its judgment, on 27th May, 1999 in Regular First Appeal No.4294 of 1998,<\/p>\n<p>had reduced the rate of compensation for the land from Rs.360\/- per square<\/p>\n<p>yard to Rs.281.76 per square yard, therefore, the amount of enhancement<\/p>\n<p>cannot be demanded as the price of the land was reduced and petitioner<\/p>\n<p>Society is entitled to refund and in case this contention is not accepted, then<\/p>\n<p>also petitioner Society is not liable to pay any further amount, as there is no<\/p>\n<p>justification for the same.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>               It has been contended that the demand for enhanced<\/p>\n<p>compensation is disproportionate and not commensurate to the original price<\/p>\n<p>for allotment of site to the petitioner Society. Furthermore, it has been stated<\/p>\n<p>that if the petitioner Society is allowed to participate in the accounting<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\"> Civil Writ Petition No. 9844 of 2001                                       3<\/span><\/p>\n<p>process, whereby rate of enhanced amount has been determined, either the<\/p>\n<p>petitioner Society will be entitled to refund or demand notice was liable to be<\/p>\n<p>withdrawn, as the amount demanded is in excess and not legally<\/p>\n<p>sustainable.\n<\/p>\n<p>               Mr. Sunil Nehra, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana,<\/p>\n<p>appearing for respondent No.1, has relied upon written statement filed by<\/p>\n<p>respondent No.3 and has urged that petitioner Society had accepted the<\/p>\n<p>allotment letter (Annexure P-2), wherein it was specifically stated and<\/p>\n<p>condition No.6 was incorporated that petitioner Society is liable to pay the<\/p>\n<p>amount of enhancement, which is paid by HUDA to the land owners in land<\/p>\n<p>acquisition proceedings. Therefore, having accepted the allotment letter,<\/p>\n<p>petitioner Society cannot wriggle out and say that they will not abide by the<\/p>\n<p>condition of allotment letter. It has been further submitted that the Estate<\/p>\n<p>Officer has acted in a most transparent manner and along with the letter<\/p>\n<p>(Annexure P-3) dated 11th September, 2000, calculation sheet was also sent<\/p>\n<p>to justify as to how rate of Rs.733.71 per square meter was determined. In<\/p>\n<p>para 41 of the written statement filed by respondent No.3, it has been<\/p>\n<p>averred as under:\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>               &#8220;41.   That in reply to the contents of Para No.41 of the<br \/>\n       petition, it is submitted that since the petitioner has failed to<br \/>\n       deposit the amount legally due from and payable by it, so notice<br \/>\n       for showing cause as to why penalty be not imposed, was<br \/>\n       lawfully issued as per the provisions contained in section 17 (1)<br \/>\n       of the HUDA Act. As per the information of the respondents no<br \/>\n       stay had been granted in favour of the petitioner at the time the<br \/>\n       said notice was issued. It may be submitted that no notices<br \/>\n       could be issued earlier for recovery of the additional amount in<br \/>\n       view of the enhancement made in the land acquisition<br \/>\n       proceedings taken out by the original land owners since the<br \/>\n       initiation of any proceedings being taken in respect of the land<br \/>\n       covered by those proceedings had been stayed by the Hon&#8217;ble<br \/>\n       High Court. In so far as the demand of additional price is<br \/>\n       concerned, it is respectfully submitted that the original demand<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\"> Civil Writ Petition No. 9844 of 2001                                          4<\/span><\/p>\n<p>       was @ Rs.613.47 per sq. yard i.e. Rs.733.71 paise per sq.<br \/>\n       meter. The same was however, revised as Rs.568.78 paise per<br \/>\n       sq. yard i.e. 680.26 per sq. meter, in the wake of directions<br \/>\n       dated 27-7-2001, copy of which alongwith the calculation sheet<br \/>\n       is attached as Annexure R-1 and lastly it was again revised as<br \/>\n       Rs.552.21 paise per sq. yard i.e. Rs.660.44 paise per sq. meter,<br \/>\n       as per directions dated 14-3-2002, copy alongwith calculation<br \/>\n       sheet enclosed as Annexure R-2.&#8221;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>               Mr. Sunil Nehra has made reference to the allotment letter<\/p>\n<p>(Annexure P-2) and has submitted that para 19 of the allotment letter binds<\/p>\n<p>the petitioner Society and respondents to seek arbitration in case of dispute.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>               I have heard counsel for the petitioner and counsel for the State<\/p>\n<p>respondent No.1. Nobody has caused appearance for HUDA, i.e.<\/p>\n<p>respondents No.2 and 3.\n<\/p>\n<p>               Condition No.19 of the allotment letter (Annexure P-2) reads as<\/p>\n<p>under:\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>               &#8220;19.   All disputes and difference arising out of or in any<br \/>\n       way touching or concerning this allotment whatsoever shall be<br \/>\n       referred to the sole arbitrator of the Chief Administrator or any<br \/>\n       other officer appointed by him in this behalf. It will not be an<br \/>\n       objection to such appointment that the arbitrator so appointed is<br \/>\n       a Govt. servant or an officer of the authority that he had to deal<br \/>\n       with matter to which this allotment relates and in the course of<br \/>\n       his duties such the Govt. servant or officer as the case may be<br \/>\n       he has expressed his views on all or any of the matters in<br \/>\n       dispute or difference. The decision of arbitrator shall be final and<br \/>\n       binding on the concerned parties.&#8221;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>               In the present case, counsel for the petitioner and counsel for<\/p>\n<p>the respondent have made submissions which cannot be reconciled.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>According to counsel for the petitioner, rate of land was reduced, therefore,<\/p>\n<p>petitioner is entitled to refund, whereas counsel for respondent-State has<\/p>\n<p>submitted that rate was enhanced and they are entitled to recover the<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\"> Civil Writ Petition No. 9844 of 2001                                          5<\/span><\/p>\n<p>amount which they have paid to the land owners. What is the amount which<\/p>\n<p>has been paid to the land owners, whether petitioners are entitled to refund<\/p>\n<p>or they have paid excess amount, this all is a matter of calculations.<\/p>\n<p>Arbitrator can examine the various contentions raised before me and call for<\/p>\n<p>the records and make necessary calculations. <a href=\"\/doc\/1087099\/\">In Hindustan Petroleum<\/p>\n<p>Corporation Limited v. M\/s Pinkcity Midway Petroleums<\/a> 2003(3) Recent<\/p>\n<p>Civil Reports 686, Hon&#8217;ble the Apex Court had opined that once it is<\/p>\n<p>admitted and established that there is an arbitration clause then the matter<\/p>\n<p>should be referred to the Arbitrator. Furthermore, in The New Friends Co-<\/p>\n<p>operative <a href=\"\/doc\/764\/\">House Building Society Limited v. Rajesh Chawla and Others<\/a><\/p>\n<p>(2004) 5 Supreme Court Cases 795, the question whether a member was a<\/p>\n<p>defaulter, his claim is to be adjudicated in appropriate proceedings or is to be<\/p>\n<p>considered in a writ jurisdiction or before the Arbitrator, it was held that the<\/p>\n<p>matter should be referred to the Arbitrator. This view has been further<\/p>\n<p>reiterated by a Division Bench of this Court in M\/s Regent Automobiles v.<\/p>\n<p>Indian Oil Corporation Limited and Others 2008(3) Recent Civil Reports<\/p>\n<p>752, <a href=\"\/doc\/34828\/\">M\/s Escort Finance Limited v. Dharambir and Another<\/a> 2005(1)<\/p>\n<p>Recent Civil Reports 458, and <a href=\"\/doc\/1163283\/\">Joginder Pal v. Hindustan Petroleum<\/p>\n<p>Corpn. Limited<\/a> 1997(2) Recent Civil Reports 605.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n<p>               In a Civil Writ Petition No. 8685 of 2008, the Chief Administrator,<\/p>\n<p>Haryana Urban Development Authority, appeared and made the following<\/p>\n<p>statement on 16th November, 2009:-\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>               &#8220;Mr. Gupta has further stated that in those cases where<br \/>\n       recovery of the amount has been stayed by this Court and cases<br \/>\n       are pending for last more than three years, the concerned officer<br \/>\n       of Haryana Urban Development Authority will be authorized to<br \/>\n       waive off penal\/compound interest and allottee\/housing society<br \/>\n       will be provided an opportunity to pay the amount in instalments.<br \/>\n       He has further submitted that in all other cases where plots have<br \/>\n       been resumed taking into consideration that dispute ought to be<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\"> Civil Writ Petition No. 9844 of 2001                                       6<\/span><\/p>\n<p>       resolved Haryana Urban Development Authority will adopt a<br \/>\n       positive approach&#8221;.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>               In these circumstances, petitioner Society is directed to seek<\/p>\n<p>appointment of Arbitrator in terms of condition No.19 of the allotment letter.<\/p>\n<p>Therefore, on the application made by the petitioner Society in consonance<\/p>\n<p>with the condition No.19 of the allotment letter, the matter shall be made<\/p>\n<p>subject matter of the arbitration by the Chief Administrator, HUDA. This is<\/p>\n<p>specially so ordered, as Mr.Sunil Nehra, Assistant Advocate General,<\/p>\n<p>Haryana has submitted that in a similar dispute, the Society namely &#8216;Aravali<\/p>\n<p>Co-operative Group Housing Society&#8217; filed an application before the Hon&#8217;ble<\/p>\n<p>Chief Justice of this Court for appointment of Arbitrator and on 23rd February,<\/p>\n<p>2007, Mr.S.K. Chopra, District and Sessions Judge (Retired) was appointed<\/p>\n<p>as Sole Arbitrator. In case petitioner Society is not satisfied with the<\/p>\n<p>Arbitrator appointed by the Chief Administrator, HUDA, they may pursue<\/p>\n<p>their remedy under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 by approaching<\/p>\n<p>appropriate forum for change of Arbitrator. Needless to say, the Arbitrator<\/p>\n<p>shall take into account the statement made by the Chief Administrator,<\/p>\n<p>HUDA in CWP No.8685 of 2008 on 16th November, 2009, portion of which<\/p>\n<p>has been reproduced above in this judgment.\n<\/p>\n<p>               With the observations made above, present writ petition is<\/p>\n<p>disposed of.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n<p>                                       [KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA]<br \/>\n                                                  JUDGE<br \/>\nDecember 7, 2009<br \/>\nrps\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Punjab-Haryana High Court The Farihills Co-Operative Group &#8230; vs State Of Haryana And Others on 7 December, 2009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.9844 of 2001 Date of decision: 7th December, 2009 The Farihills Co-operative Group Housing Society Ltd. &#8230; Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,28],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-89589","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-punjab-haryana-high-court"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>The Farihills Co-Operative Group ... vs State Of Haryana And Others on 7 December, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-farihills-co-operative-group-vs-state-of-haryana-and-others-on-7-december-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"The Farihills Co-Operative Group ... vs State Of Haryana And Others on 7 December, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-farihills-co-operative-group-vs-state-of-haryana-and-others-on-7-december-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2009-12-06T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-07-11T05:31:01+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"9 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-farihills-co-operative-group-vs-state-of-haryana-and-others-on-7-december-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-farihills-co-operative-group-vs-state-of-haryana-and-others-on-7-december-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"The Farihills Co-Operative Group &#8230; vs State Of Haryana And Others on 7 December, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-12-06T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-07-11T05:31:01+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-farihills-co-operative-group-vs-state-of-haryana-and-others-on-7-december-2009\"},\"wordCount\":1747,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Punjab-Haryana High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-farihills-co-operative-group-vs-state-of-haryana-and-others-on-7-december-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-farihills-co-operative-group-vs-state-of-haryana-and-others-on-7-december-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-farihills-co-operative-group-vs-state-of-haryana-and-others-on-7-december-2009\",\"name\":\"The Farihills Co-Operative Group ... vs State Of Haryana And Others on 7 December, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-12-06T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-07-11T05:31:01+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-farihills-co-operative-group-vs-state-of-haryana-and-others-on-7-december-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-farihills-co-operative-group-vs-state-of-haryana-and-others-on-7-december-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-farihills-co-operative-group-vs-state-of-haryana-and-others-on-7-december-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"The Farihills Co-Operative Group &#8230; vs State Of Haryana And Others on 7 December, 2009\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"The Farihills Co-Operative Group ... vs State Of Haryana And Others on 7 December, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-farihills-co-operative-group-vs-state-of-haryana-and-others-on-7-december-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"The Farihills Co-Operative Group ... vs State Of Haryana And Others on 7 December, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-farihills-co-operative-group-vs-state-of-haryana-and-others-on-7-december-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-12-06T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-07-11T05:31:01+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"9 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-farihills-co-operative-group-vs-state-of-haryana-and-others-on-7-december-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-farihills-co-operative-group-vs-state-of-haryana-and-others-on-7-december-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"The Farihills Co-Operative Group &#8230; vs State Of Haryana And Others on 7 December, 2009","datePublished":"2009-12-06T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-07-11T05:31:01+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-farihills-co-operative-group-vs-state-of-haryana-and-others-on-7-december-2009"},"wordCount":1747,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Punjab-Haryana High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-farihills-co-operative-group-vs-state-of-haryana-and-others-on-7-december-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-farihills-co-operative-group-vs-state-of-haryana-and-others-on-7-december-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-farihills-co-operative-group-vs-state-of-haryana-and-others-on-7-december-2009","name":"The Farihills Co-Operative Group ... vs State Of Haryana And Others on 7 December, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-12-06T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-07-11T05:31:01+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-farihills-co-operative-group-vs-state-of-haryana-and-others-on-7-december-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-farihills-co-operative-group-vs-state-of-haryana-and-others-on-7-december-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-farihills-co-operative-group-vs-state-of-haryana-and-others-on-7-december-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"The Farihills Co-Operative Group &#8230; vs State Of Haryana And Others on 7 December, 2009"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/89589","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=89589"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/89589\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=89589"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=89589"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=89589"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}