CourtKutchehry.com
High CourtsDivision Bench(2014) 03 P&H CK 0209

Chuni Lal and Others vs Union of India and Others

Punjab And Haryana At Chandigarh · Decided on 4 March 2014

HON’BLE JUDGES
Surya Kant, J · Amol Rattan Singh, J
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
CWP No. 2541 of 2007

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

6 paragraphs · 369 words

Surya Kant, J.—The petitioners while impugning the notices like dated 6th June, 2006 (Annexures P4 & P5) issued u/s 9 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, also lay challenge to the consequential Award dated 22nd June, 2006 (Annexure P7) passed in respect of the land acquired for establishment of Academy for Central Reserve Police Force by the Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India in village Kadarpur, Tehsil Sohna District Gurgaon.

2.

The petitioners'' own case in Para No. 20 of the writ petition is that they have already impugned the Notifications issued under Sections 4 & 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 "on almost similar grounds" in CWP No. 14142 of 2004.

3.

No sooner this case was taken up for final hearing, it is pointed out by learned counsel for the respondents that the abovementioned writ petition challenging the acquisition notifications stands dismissed by a Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 29th May, 2007.

4.

In the instant case also, the prayer for stay was specifically declined by this Court on January 15, 2008. The only legal plea appears to have been taken by the petitioners is that the impugned Award dated 22nd June, 2006 has not been passed within the period prescribed u/s 11-A of the 1894 Act. There, however, appears to be no merit in the said plea. The notification u/s 6 was published on 23rd June, 2004, whereas the impugned Award has been passed on 22nd June, 2006.

5.

Similarly the other plea taken by the petitioners, namely, that there is no prior approval of the State Government before passing the Award, does not cut much ice for the reason that no consequential prejudice, if any, caused to them has been pointed out. In any case, the State Government has fully supported the Award passed by the Land Acquisition Collector. The other grounds taken by the petitioners have already been dealt with and rejected by this Court in CWP No. 14142 of 2004 decided on 29 th May, 2007 titled as Chuni Lal & Ors. vs. State of Haryana and another.

6.

For the reasons abovementioned we do not find any merit in this petition and the same is accordingly dismissed.