Non-Compliance With Rule 14 Of NDPS Rules 2022 Regarding Quantitative Test Vitiates Prosecution Case And Renders Detention Illegal: Allahabad High Court Supreme Court Directs Systematic Audit And Institutional Accountability For Safety In Public Spaces Under Article 21 Extra-Judicial Confession Made Before Police Cannot Solely Sustain Preventive Detention: Supreme Court Pre-Trial Incarceration Cannot Masquerade As Punitive Detention When Trial Is Not Imminent: Supreme Court Land Acquisition | Radial ‘Hub-And-Spoke’ Valuation Models For Contiguous Lands Are Legally Unsustainable: Supreme Court Forfeiture Of Earnest Money Deposit Is A Valid Consequence Upon Failure To Pay Balance Sale Consideration Under IBC Liquidation Process: Supreme Court Res Judicata | Suit For Specific Performance Barred If Relief Was Available In Prior Suit For Permanent Injunction And Not Claimed: Supreme Court RERA | Allottee’s Right To Seek Refund Is Absolute And Unqualified, Not Subject To Promoter’s Completion Of Project: Bombay High Court Order 1 Rule 10(2) CPC | Appellate Court Cannot Summarily Reject Addition Of Legal Heirs Based On Unproven Documents Without Reason: Calcutta High Court Order XIV Rule 5 CPC | Trial Court Must Frame Additional Issues Based On Liberty Granted By Supreme Court To Ensure Just Adjudication: Delhi High Court Mere Citation Of Wrong Provision Does Not Invalidate Order If Court Possessed Jurisdiction: Gujarat High Court Injunction Under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 CPC Cannot Be Granted Over Large Unidentified Tract Of Land Without Establishing Prima Facie Case: Himachal Pradesh High Court Section 125 CrPC | Mere Rejection Of Permanent Alimony Plea In Divorce Proceedings Does Not Bar Claim For Maintenance: Karnataka High Court Section 311 BNSS | Trial Court Has Discretion To Record Evidence In Narrative Form; Accused Cannot Insist On Question-Answer Format: Kerala High Court Section 482 CrPC | Principle Of Parity Cannot Be Invoked To Quash FIR If Allegations Against Accused Are Distinct And Substantiated: Madhya Pradesh High Court Motor Vehicles Act | Tribunal Cannot Grant 'Right Of Recovery' To Insurer Without Evidence Of Policy Violation: Orissa High Court Mere Inadequacy Of Consideration Or Illiteracy Does Not Vitiate Specific Performance Unless Exploitation Is Proved: Madras High Court Contempt Jurisdiction Cannot Be Converted Into Parallel Forum To Enforce Civil Decrees: Punjab & Haryana High Court Order 18 Rule 17 CPC | Reopening Evidence At The Stage Of Arguments Without Compelling Grounds Amounts To Abuse Of Process: Telangana High Court Cannot Circumvent Bail Granted By Supreme Court: Punjab & Haryana High Court Quashes PITNDPS Preventive Detention Order

“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