STATE OF HARYANA ETC. versus M/S BEST LAND DEVELOPERS

High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

---

State of Haryana etc. v. M/s Best Land Developers - CM-299-Ci-2006 [2006] RD-P&H 527 (2 February 2006)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH

C.M.No.299-CI of 2006 in

RFA No. 883 of 2005

Date of Decision: January 20, 2006

State of Haryana etc. ...........Appellants.

Versus

M/s Best Land Developers ..........Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr.Justice Hemant Gupta

Present: Mr.Madan Gupta,Senior Deputy Advocate General, Haryana.

HEMANT GUPTA, J. (oral)

Appellants has sought modification of the order passed by this Court on 11.3.2005, whereby the amount of compensation was ordered to be released to the land owners on furnishing of adequate surety bonds to the satisfaction of the Executive Court.

It is contended that in the another set of appeals arising out of notification under Section 4 dated 05.5.1997 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act') this Court in appeal has stayed 50% of the enhanced amount of compensation on 22.2.2005.

Therefore, the same order is required to be passed in the present appeal.

However, I am unable to accept the plea raised by the learned counsel for the appellants. The present appeal arises out of the notification dated 5.5.1997 under Section 4 of the Act. The award of the Land Acquisition Collector was announced on 3.5.2000. Reference Court has decided references of the land owners on 25.11.2004. In the other set of RFA No.883 of 2005

appeals, the notification under Section 4 of the Act was published on 15.5.1997. The Land Acquisition Collector has given its award on 3.5.2000 and the Reference Court has enhanced the amount of compensation vide its award dated 4.11.2004. It is, thus, apparent that the acquisition proceedings in respect of both sets of appeals is by way of separate notifications.

Therefore, the mere fact that some interim order has been passed in another set of appeals, is not a ground on the basis of which order passed by this Court on 11.3.2005 can be modified.

Consequently, I do not find any ground to interfere in the order passed by this Court.

Dismissed.

(Hemant Gupta)

January 20,2006 JUDGE

arya

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

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.