Order VIII Rules 3 & 5 CPC | Silence Is Admission: State’s Failure To Specifically Deny Hiring Amounts To Acceptance: JK HC Mere Entry, Abuse Or Assault Is Not Civil Contempt – Willfulness And Dispossession Must Be Clearly Proved: Bombay High Court Magistrate Cannot Shut Eyes To Final Report After Cognizance – Supplementary Report Must Be Judicially Considered Before Framing Charges: Allahabad High Court Examination-in-Chief Alone Cannot Sustain Conviction Amid Serious Doubts: Delhi High Court Upholds Acquittal in Grievous Hurt Case Employees Cannot Pick Favourable Terms and Reject the Rest: Bombay High Court Upholds SIDBI’s Cut-Off Date for Pension to CPF Optees Cannot Reclaim Absolute Ownership After Letting Your Declaration Suit Fail: AP High Court Enforces Finality in Partition Appeal Death Due to Fat Embolism and Delayed Treatment Is Not Culpable Homicide: Orissa High Court Converts 30-Year-Old 304 Part-I Conviction to Grievous Hurt Fabricated Lease Cannot Be Sanctified by Consolidation Entry: Orissa High Court Dismisses 36-Year-Old Second Appeal Rules of the Game Were Never Changed: Delhi High Court Upholds CSIR’s Power to Prescribe Minimum Threshold in CASE-2023 Resignation Does Not Forfeit Earned Pension: Calcutta High Court Declares Company Superannuation Benefit as ‘Wages’ Under Law Fraud Vitiates Everything—Stranger Can File Independent Suit Against Compromise Decree: Bombay High Court Refuses to Reject 49-Year-Old Challenge at Threshold Mere Long Possession By One Co-Owner Does Not Destroy The Co-Ownership Right Of The Other: Madras High Court State Cannot Hide Behind An Illegal Undertaking: Punjab & Haryana High Court Questions Denial Of Retrospective Regularization Sentence Cannot Be Reduced to Two Months for Four Life-Threatening Stab Wounds: Supreme Court Restores 3-Year RI in Attempt to Murder Case Suspicion, However Grave, Cannot Substitute Proof: Apex Court Reaffirms Limits of Section 106 IEA Accused at the Time of the Statement Was Not in the Custody of the Police - Discovery Statement Held Inadmissible Under Section 27: Supreme Court Failure to Explain What Happened After ‘Last Seen Together’ Becomes an Additional Link: Supreme Court Strengthens Section 106 Evidence Act Doctrine Suicide in a Pact Is Conditional Upon Mutual Participation — Survivor’s Resolve Reinforces the Act: Supreme Court Affirms Conviction Under Section 306 IPC Participation in Draw Does Not Cure Illegality: Supreme Court Rejects Estoppel in Arbitrary Flat Allotment Case Nepotism and Self-Aggrandizement Are Anathema to a Democratic System: Supreme Court Quashes Allotment of Super Deluxe Flats by Government Employees’ Welfare Society Liberty Is Not Absolute When It Becomes a Threat to Society: Supreme Court Cancels Bail of Alleged ₹6.5 Crore Fraud Mastermind Magistrate’s Power Is Limited — Sessions Court May Yet Try the Case: Supreme Court Corrects High Court’s Misconception in ₹6.5 Crore Fraud Bail Order Dacoity Cannot Be Presumed, It Must Be Proved: Allahabad High Court Acquits Villagers After 43 Years, Citing ‘Glaring Lapses’ in Prosecution Case When the Judge Signs with the Prosecutor, Justice Is Already Compromised: MP High Court Quashes Tainted Medical College Enquiry Strict Rules Of Evidence Do Not Apply To Proceedings Before The Family Court: Kerala High Court Upholds Wife’s Claim For Gold And Money Commission Workers Cannot Claim Status of Civil Servants: Gujarat High Court Declines Regularization of Physically Challenged Case-Paper Operators Non-Wearing of Helmet Had a Direct Nexus with Fatal Head Injuries  : Madras High Court Upholds 25% Contributory Negligence for Helmet Violation Only a ‘Person Aggrieved’ Can Prosecute Defamation – Political Party Must Be Properly Represented: Karnataka High Court Quashes Case Against Rahul Gandhi

“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