Section 9 A&C Act Relief Available Until Award Is Actually Enforced, Even After It Becomes Enforceable: Telangana High Court Matrimonial Litigations Must Not Degenerate Into Contests Of Mutual Humiliation By Weaponising Private Images: Delhi High Court Unarmed Witnesses’ Inaction Against Armed Assailants Justified By Instinct Of Self-Preservation; Testimony Cannot Be Discarded: Allahabad High Court Ocular Evidence Outweighs Motive: Andhra Pradesh High Court Upholds Murder Conviction Based On Reliable Eyewitness Testimony Arrest Illegal If Written 'Grounds Of Arrest' Not Furnished To Accused; Communication Of Mere 'Reasons' Insufficient: Bombay High Court Absence Of Territorial Jurisdiction No Ground To Quash FIR At Threshold If Allegations Disclose Cognizable Offence: Calcutta High Court Proof Of Demand Is Sine Qua Non For PC Act Conviction; Voice Recordings Inadmissible Without Sec 65-B Certificate: Chhattisgarh HC Section 91 IEA | Disposition Of Immovable Property Cannot Be Proved By Oral Evidence If Written Document Not Produced: Delhi High Court NRC Legacy Data Extracts Inadmissible Without Section 65B Certificate; PAN Card & EPIC Not Proof Of Citizenship: Gauhati High Court Testimony Of Injured Witness Entitled To Great Weight; Minor Contradictions Due To Lapse Of Memory Cannot Discard Prosecution Case: Himachal Pradesh High Court Section 164 CrPC Statement Recorded Without Procedural Safeguards Or 'Cooling-Off' Period Not A Valid Confession: Jharkhand High Court Anticipatory Bail Cannot Be Denied Merely Because Investigation Is At A Nascent Stage If Custodial Interrogation Is Not Indispensable: Telangana High Court Actual Pay Drawn During Last 10 Months Must Be Basis For Pension Calculation, Regardless Of Notional Pay In Parent Bank: Punjab & Haryana High Court Kerala High Court Remands Teacher Seniority Dispute For Fresh Consideration To Verify If Senior Teacher Relinquished Promotion Claim Receipt Of DNA Report After Testimony Doesn't Automatically Confer Right To Recall Witness For Further Cross-Examination: Madhya Pradesh High Court Possession Of 'Bhang' Not An Offence Under NDPS Act, Specific Definition Excludes It: Jharkhand High Court Acquits Man

“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