Punjab and Haryana High Court: A Law Breaker Cannot Be Permitted To Get Any Relief From The Court By Performing An Act Contrary To The Provisions Of Law, dismisses all Writ Petitions

Must Read

Doctrine of Proportionality Must Adhere to Reasonableness Principal Test: Madras High Court

Young Men's Christian Association built a commercial complex and leased it without having due permission. The District Collector &...

Delhi High Court Refuses To Stay Release of ‘The White Tiger’ on the OTT Platform Netflix

A plea requesting a stay on the release of the film ‘The White Tiger’ by the American producer, John Hart Jr. alleging copyright violation was rejected by the Delhi High Court on Thursday.

“Anganwadi Centers to Be Reopened Outside the Containment Zones, Which Is to Be Decided by the State”: Supreme Court

This case concerns the reopening of the Anganwadi Centers after they had been closed due to the lockdown being...

“Credit Facilities Being Granted by the Primary Agricultural Credit Society to the Non-Members Is No Longer Illegal”: Supreme Court

This Case concerns the dispute relating to the grant of tax exemption under Section 80P of the Income Tax...

Back Wages of Labourers is a Question of Facts Depending Upon Various Factors: Gujarat High Court

The petition has been filed by workmen and employer against an award dated 23.04.2009 passed by the Labour Court,...

WhatsApp Messages Would Have No Evidentiary Value Until They Are Certified According to Section 65b of the Indian Evidence Act: Punjab & Haryana High...

Brief facts of the case Paramjit Kaur, the proprietor of Brioshine Pharma, a licensed chemist, booked two consignments. The first...

Follow us

The case, Kajal vs State Of Haryana & Ors on 20 March 2020 relies on the petitioner invoking Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India and Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act and notification under Section 6 of the said Act.

The petitioner, an owner in possession of land situated within the Revenue Estate of village Jhajjar, Tehsil and District Jhajjar, purchased the land in the year 2010. She firstly constructed her residential house and a shop in which she later started her business with the name ‘Jai Durga Mobile House’. In the same premises, she constructed a godown and two new shops. The State Government, under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act issued a notification for the acquisition of the land of the petitioner, for the purpose of development and utilisation of residential area in Sector 10, Jhajjar.

The petitioner filed an objection before the competent authority to release her residential house along with three shops and godown from the acquisition, however, it was set aside without giving any reason for the same. The petitioner even challenged the order passed by Secretary-cum-Director General, Urban Estates Department, Haryana, vide which, the request of the petition was rejected, arbitrarily and in violation of the State Government policies.

The counsel for the petitioner pleaded

  • The aforesaid notification was not published in accordance with the mandatory provisions of the law, under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act.
  • The petitioner was arbitrarily discriminated, while the constructed houses of the other similarly placed persons were released from the acquisition of the competent authority.
  • The petitioner constructed the house in the year 2010 and the notification came out in the year 2011.
  • Hence, there is a challenge to aforesaid notification and impugned order with further relief to direct the respondent to release the land and house/ shops/ godown of the petitioner.
  • The counsel, giving reference to Sukhdev Singh & Ors. V The State of Haryana & Ors., pleaded that the constructed portion of the house should be released.

The respondent counsel pleaded

  • The land in question, along with other lands was acquired for the public purpose, in accordance with the provision of the act.
  • Petitioner(s) was/were given an opportunity to file objections under Section 5(A) and they filed the same. Objections were made and they were given an opportunity of hearing.
  • The land was already notified as to the controlled area under Section 4(1)(a) of the Punjab Scheduled Road and Controlled Area Restrictions of Unregulated Development Act, 1963.
  • The petitioner’s claim to release the land is on the ground that the other lands have already been released and not on what the actual matter is.
  • The land of the petitioner was lying vacant until the notification came.
  • The alleged construction was raised in violation of the provision of the Act of 1963, it is notified as ‘constructed area’ under the said Act – meaning: the construction is illegal and cannot be granted relief.
  • No charge of land usage certificate was taken by the petitioners before raising the aforesaid construction.
  • The petitioner cannot claim parity, pleaded, after re-survey, it was decided to provide one plot of the petitioner. It was pleaded by the counsel that the writ petition deserved to be dismissed.

Punjab & Haryana High Court, Article 30 of Constitution

Court’s Observations & Judgements

  • In the present writ petition, the petitioner has failed to establish that the notification under Section 4 and Section 6 was not issued in accordance with the provision of law.
  • Only those requests for release of land from the acquisition are considered by the State Government under Section 5(A), where structures were constructed prior to the notification under Section 4 and they are inhabited and used by the owner for his evidence.
  • One cannot be permitted to take advantage of what’s wrong.
  • The case of the petitioner was different from others. Their land was required by the Government for the widening of roads and green belt. In the light of the above. The petitioner has failed to prove the plea of discrimination.

Hence, being bereft of merit, all the writ petitions were dismissed.


Libertatem.in is now on Telegram. Follow us for regular legal updates and judgements from the court. Follow us on Google News, InstagramLinkedInFacebook & Twitter. You can also subscribe for our Weekly Email Updates. You can also contribute stories like this and help us spread awareness for a better society. Submit Your Post Now.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Latest News

Doctrine of Proportionality Must Adhere to Reasonableness Principal Test: Madras High Court

Young Men's Christian Association built a commercial complex and leased it without having due permission. The District Collector & Tahsildar issued a show-cause notice...

Delhi High Court Refuses To Stay Release of ‘The White Tiger’ on the OTT Platform Netflix

A plea requesting a stay on the release of the film ‘The White Tiger’ by the American producer, John Hart Jr. alleging copyright violation was rejected by the Delhi High Court on Thursday.

“Anganwadi Centers to Be Reopened Outside the Containment Zones, Which Is to Be Decided by the State”: Supreme Court

This case concerns the reopening of the Anganwadi Centers after they had been closed due to the lockdown being imposed.  Brief facts of the case This...

“Credit Facilities Being Granted by the Primary Agricultural Credit Society to the Non-Members Is No Longer Illegal”: Supreme Court

This Case concerns the dispute relating to the grant of tax exemption under Section 80P of the Income Tax Act, 1961.  Brief facts of the...

Back Wages of Labourers is a Question of Facts Depending Upon Various Factors: Gujarat High Court

The petition has been filed by workmen and employer against an award dated 23.04.2009 passed by the Labour Court, Bhuj in the case of...

WhatsApp Messages Would Have No Evidentiary Value Until They Are Certified According to Section 65b of the Indian Evidence Act: Punjab & Haryana High...

Brief facts of the case Paramjit Kaur, the proprietor of Brioshine Pharma, a licensed chemist, booked two consignments. The first consignment, on 10.06.2020 and the,...

Delhi High Court Seeks Response From Centre, RBI in PIL to Regulate Online Lending Platforms

A notice had been issued by the Delhi HC in a PIL that sought regulation of online lending platforms (Dharanidhar Karimojji vs UOI). Brief Facts: The...

“Consensual Affair” Cannot Be Defence Against the Charge of Kidnapping of the Minor, Sentence Reduced in View of Age Difference: Supreme Court

This Case concerns the appeal against the conviction under the charges of kidnapping and discussed whether the punishment was to be enhanced or not.   Brief...

Delhi HC to Municipal Corp: Paucity of Funds Not an Excuse for Non-Payment of Salaries and Pensions

The Delhi High Court ruled that the paucity of funds cannot be an excuse and pulled up municipal corporations for not paying salaries and pensions to their employees as the right to receive payment is a fundamental right guaranteed in our constitution.

US Supreme Court Reinstates Restriction on Abortion Pills

The Supreme Court of the United States granted the Trump administration’s request to reinstate federal rules requiring women to make in-person visits to hospitals...

More Articles Like This

- Advertisement -