'Promotion Effected Long Ago Not To Be Disturbed': Supreme Court Sets Aside HC Order Quashing 13-Year-Old Promotion; Holds 'Laying Rules' Directory Not Mandatory "Mere Oral Assertion Or 'Data Loss' Letter Not Enough To Prove Driving Licence Validity; Owner Has Strict Duty To Ensure Renewal": Supreme Court Reinstates Insurer's Non-Liability, Applies 'Pay & Recover' Principle "Zero Tolerance To Corruption": Supreme Court Reinstates FIRs Against Karnataka Cops, Slams High Court For 'Mini-Trial' & Exceeding S.482 CrPC Powers ‘Ancillary Services Don't Override Carriage’: Supreme Court Upholds 7.5% Presumptive Income For Cruise Operators Under Section 44B IT Act, Rejects Revenue's Higher Tax Claim Division Bench Refuses To Quash FIR, Holds It Cannot Nullify Single Judge's Final Order Directing Registration Of Case: Allahabad High Court High Court Leave Under Clause XII Doesn't Protect Transferred Suits; Section 16 CPC Strictly Applies To City Civil Court In 'Suits For Land': Bombay High Court Joint Account Holder Who Didn't Sign The Dishonoured Cheque Cannot Be Prosecuted Under Section 138 NI Act: Punjab & Haryana High Court Suits Cannot Be Consolidated If Parties, Properties, And Causes Of Action Are Different: Telangana High Court P&H High Court Halts All Construction In Mohali's Shivalik Foothills Over Failure To Demarcate 'Forest Land', Bars Land Sale No Embargo On Issuing Single Statutory Notice Under Section 138 NI Act For Multiple Dishonoured Cheques: Orissa High Court District Collector Has No Jurisdiction Under CrPC To Order Reopening Of Investigation Or Recall Of Closure Report: Madhya Pradesh High Court No Exclusive Monopoly Over Geographical Term 'Malabar' In Isolation; Protection Limited To Registered Composite Marks: Kerala High Court Person In 'De Facto' Control Is A Promoter Under Companies Act Even If Designated As Professional Director: Karnataka High Court Supreme Court Urges Mandatory Animal Tagging, Strict Enforcement of Gaushala Laws To Tackle Stray Cattle Crisis; Holds Owners Accountable "Don't Render Victims Remediless": Supreme Court Slams High Court For Dismissing Plea Over Stray Bull Death, Awards ₹15 Lakh Compensation Supreme Court Red-Flags 'Unregulated Shadow Work' of Private Investigators, Calls For Legislative Overhaul on Digital Evidence & Privacy Rights 125 CrPC | Wife 'Not Entitled To Interim Maintenance If Adultery Established Ex Facie': Supreme Court Evidence Against Absconder Invalid Without Prior S.299 CrPC Order: SC Acquits Murder Accused Ad Valorem Court Fee Mandatory For Section 54 Appeals Challenging Land Acquisition Awards: Supreme Court

“Punjab and Haryana High Court: Physical Possession a Must for Land Acquisition, Discrimination Claims Dismissed”

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling, the Punjab and Haryana High Court emphasized the necessity of physical possession for land acquisition, thereby dismissing claims of discrimination in a recent judgment. The case, which challenged a notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, followed by a Section 6 declaration, had raised critical questions about the interpretation of the law.

The judgment, delivered by a bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court on September 11, 2023, clarified the legal position on land acquisition and the vesting of land in the state.

The Court held that actual physical possession is a prerequisite for the vesting of land with the state. This interpretation aligns with the Supreme Court’s recent decision in “Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal and others,” which overruled the earlier ruling in Prahlad Singh’s case.

The case involved a challenge to a notification issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, followed by a Section 6 declaration. The Land Acquisition Authority had not taken physical possession of the land, leading to claims of discrimination based on the release of lands with prior construction. Review applications had previously been dismissed by the Court.

In its observation, the Punjab and Haryana High Court stated, “Land vests with the State upon recording of Rapat Roznamacha. Discrimination claims are not applicable in cases where there is no prior construction.”

Furthermore, the Court rejected the violation of the National Capital Region Planning Board Act No. 2 of 1985, emphasizing that the decision was based on established legal principles.

This judgment sets a precedent in land acquisition matters, clarifying the importance of actual physical possession in such cases and providing guidance for future disputes. The Court’s decision reaffirms the significance of adherence to statutory procedures in land acquisition matters.

Representing the petitioners, Mr. M.L. Sharma, Advocate, argued the case, while Mr. Ankur Mittal, Additional Advocate General, Haryana, with Mr. Saurabh Mago, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana, represented the respondents. The judgment from the Punjab and Haryana High Court brings clarity to a contentious legal issue and is expected to have far-reaching implications for land acquisition cases across the region.

Date of decision :  September 11, 2023

Pawan Singh and another Vs State of Haryana and others

[gview file="https://lawyer-e-news.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/Pawan_Singh_And_Anr_vs_State_Of_Haryana_Ors_on_11_September_2023_PH.pdf"]

Latest Legal News