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

Bombay High Court Allows Petition Seeking Lawyers and Legal Clerks To Travel in Local Trains

The present hearing arose out of a batch of Public Interest Litigations that was filed in the Bombay High...

Provisions for Retirement of Teachers Must Be Read With the Larger Interest of Students in Mind: Supreme Court

Supreme Court in Navin Chandra Dhoundiyal v State of Uttarakhand reinstated the appellants to their position as Professor on...

Parties Cannot Deny Specific Performance Merely Due To Delay: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court, in Ferrodous Estate v P Gopirathnam, revisited the law on the specific performance of a contract....

Chandigarh Housing Board Is Bound To Implement the Chandigarh Administration’s Policy Decision: Punjab & Haryana High Court

On 15th October 2020, Justices Jaswant Singh and Sant Parkash heard the case of Bhartendu Sood vs Chandigarh Housing Board...

Bombay High Court Refuses Interim Relief to Doctors Alleging Arbitrary Placement at Government Hospitals for One-Year Mandatory Public Service

The Bombay High Court was hearing a plea against the arbitrary placement of doctors for a mandatory period of...

Uttarakhand High Court Dismisses Writ Petition Seeking Relief for the Cancellation of Selection Process

On 13th October 2020, a Single Judge Bench of Hon'ble Justice Lok Pal Singh, heard the case of Ashish...

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

Bombay High Court Allows Petition Seeking Lawyers and Legal Clerks To Travel in Local Trains

The present hearing arose out of a batch of Public Interest Litigations that was filed in the Bombay High Court to permit the members...

Provisions for Retirement of Teachers Must Be Read With the Larger Interest of Students in Mind: Supreme Court

Supreme Court in Navin Chandra Dhoundiyal v State of Uttarakhand reinstated the appellants to their position as Professor on basis of re-employment till the...

Parties Cannot Deny Specific Performance Merely Due To Delay: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court, in Ferrodous Estate v P Gopirathnam, revisited the law on the specific performance of a contract. It reiterated that mere delay...

Chandigarh Housing Board Is Bound To Implement the Chandigarh Administration’s Policy Decision: Punjab & Haryana High Court

On 15th October 2020, Justices Jaswant Singh and Sant Parkash heard the case of Bhartendu Sood vs Chandigarh Housing Board & Anr., via video-conferencing. Deeming the...

Bombay High Court Refuses Interim Relief to Doctors Alleging Arbitrary Placement at Government Hospitals for One-Year Mandatory Public Service

The Bombay High Court was hearing a plea against the arbitrary placement of doctors for a mandatory period of one year. The petitioners prayed...

Uttarakhand High Court Dismisses Writ Petition Seeking Relief for the Cancellation of Selection Process

On 13th October 2020, a Single Judge Bench of Hon'ble Justice Lok Pal Singh, heard the case of Ashish Bisht & Anr. v. State...

Madras High Court Dismisses Writ Petition Against National Stock Exchange For Lack Of Merit

In the case of A. Kumar v. Financial Intelligence Unit & Ors., A. Kumar filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution...

The Federal Appeals Court Holds Trump’s Diversion of Military Funds To Build the Wall To Be Unlawful

The Federal Appeals Court held that US President Donald Trump’s diversion of military funds to build the wall is unlawful. A grey area in the...

Supreme Court Dismisses Appeal Filed Challenging the Judgment of Madras High Court in Ganesan v. State Represented by Its Inspector of Police

An appeal was filed before the Supreme court, challenging the judgment & order of Madras High Court. The Supreme Court upheld the HC judgment...

Bombay High Court Refuses Interim Relief to Doctors Alleging Arbitrary Placement at Government Hospitals for One-Year Mandatory Public Service

The Bombay High Court was hearing a plea against the arbitrary placement of doctors for a mandatory period of one year. The petitioners prayed...

More Articles Like This

- Advertisement -