Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

MR. RANDHIR SINGH versus MR. RANDHIR SINGH

High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


MR. RANDHIR SINGH v. MR. RANDHIR SINGH - CWP-18986-2005 [2005] RD-P&H 102 (17 August 2005)

CWP NO.18986 2005 (O&M) 1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

CWP NO.18986F 2005 (O&M)

DATE OF DECISION: 22.12.2005

Baldev Singh ...Petitioner.

Versus

State of Haryana and others ..Respondents.

CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE J.S. KHEHAR
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL

PRESENT: Mr. S.K. Jain, Advocate

for the petitioner.

J.S. Khehar, J. (oral)

The land of the petitioner was sought to be acquired through a notification dated 19.12.2002 issued under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act'). Dissatisfied with the determination of the authorities to acquire his land, the petitioner filed objections under section 5A of the Act on 16.1.2003. Despite the objections filed by the petitioner, the respondents issued a declaration under section 6 of the Act dated 18.12.2003, wherein the land of the petitioner was included. Through the instant writ petition, the petitioner has impugned CWP NO.18986 2005 (O&M) 2

the notification dated 19.12.2002 and the declaration dated 18.12.2003.

On the last date of hearing i.e. on 8.12.2005, our attention was invited to paragraph 8 of the objections filed by the petitioner under section 5A of the Act. Paragraph 8 is being extracted here:- "8. That all the land owners of village Vaidwala including the petitioner have been residing in pucca houses constructed by them in the land. There are more than 20 submersible tubewells installed in the land in question. The value of each of the submersible tubewell is more than Rs.6 lacs. All these installations and the houses would be rendered useless in case of acquisition."

Prima facie satisfied that the petitioner had raised substantial construction on his land, which was sought to be acquired, we required the learned counsel for the petitioner to place on the record of this case photographs of the constructed area to evaluate the nature of construction. Accordingly, the petitioner has collectively placed on the record of this case photographs through Annexures P8 to P10.

We have perused the photographs. The same are in the nature of isolated rooms normally found on farm houses. The construction on the petitioner's land is not surrounded by any other constructed area.

In view of the above, we are satisfied that the construction CWP NO.18986 2005 (O&M) 3

made on the petitioner's property, which is sought to be acquired by the respondents, is not such as to entail de-acquisition from the acquisition proceedings. In fact, learned counsel for the petitioner himself acknowledges that the construction on the land of the petitioner is `B' class construction. Even if that be so, having examined the photographs placed on the record of this case, we are satisfied that the claim of the petitioner is clearly misconceived.

Dismissed.

( J.S. Khehar )

Judge

( Ajay Kumar Mittal )

December 22, 2005. Judge

vig


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.