INSTITUTE OF LAW Vs. NEERAJ SHARMA
LAWS(SC)-2014-9-61
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: PUNJAB & HARYANA)
Decided on
September 19,2014
Institute Of Law
Appellant
VERSUS
NEERAJ SHARMA
Respondents
Referred Judgements :-
S.P. GUPTA V. UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. [REFERRED TO]FERTILIZER CORPORATION KAMGAR UNION REGD SINDRI VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA VS. JAIN SABHA NEW DELHI [REFERRED TO]
DATTARAJ NATHUJI THAWARE VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [REFERRED TO]
AKHIL BHARTIYA UPBHOKTA CONGRESS VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
Cited Judgements :-
T.HARISH RAO VS. GOVERNMENT OF A.P. [LAWS(TLNG)-2024-4-77] [REFERRED TO]J.S. LUTHRA ACADEMY & ANOTHER VS. STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR & OTHERS [LAWS(SC)-2018-10-94] [REFERRED TO]
SUBHAJIT SOM VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [LAWS(CAL)-2021-3-52] [REFERRED TO]
UDAYPAL SINGH VS. STATE OF U.P. AND ORS. [LAWS(ALL)-2015-10-11] [REFERRED TO]
SURENDRA SHAMSUNDAR JEWARE VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2022-10-110] [REFERRED TO]
LALVULLIEN VS. STATE OF MANIPUR [LAWS(MANIP)-2017-12-2] [REFERRED TO]
JAM AALA AJABHAI AND ORS. VS. ESSAR POWER GUJARAT LIMITED AND ORS. [LAWS(GJH)-2015-10-137] [REFERRED TO]
M/S INDUS TECHNICAL EDUCATION SOCIETY VS. STATE OF U.P. AND 5 ORS. [LAWS(ALL)-2016-12-158] [REFERRED TO]
FEDERATION OF NOIDA RESIDENTS WELFARE ASSOCIATION VS. NOIDA TOLL BRIDGE COMPANY LTD. AND OTHERS [LAWS(ALL)-2016-10-135] [REFERRED TO]
O.M. DEBARA VS. GOVERNMENT OF A.P. [LAWS(TLNG)-2024-1-25] [REFERRED TO]
NISHAKAR MONDAL VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [LAWS(CAL)-2024-4-36] [REFERRED TO]
SUNIL KUMAR VS. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND AND OTHERS [LAWS(UTN)-2017-3-27] [REFERRED TO]
URMILA PINGLE VS. STATE OF TELANGANA [LAWS(TLNG)-2023-6-57] [REFERRED TO]
BIHAR STATE HOUSING BOARD VS. RADHA VALLABH HEALTH CARE AND RESEARCH INSTITUTE [LAWS(SC)-2019-9-39] [REFERRED TO]
IN REFERENCE NAZUL POLICY OF STATE FOR DISPOSING & MANAGEMENT OF NAZUL LAND VS. STATE & ORS [LAWS(UTN)-2018-6-77] [REFERRED TO]
EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE MAULANA MOHAMAD ALI JAUHAR TRUST VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2024-3-53] [REFERRED TO]
BHAV SINGH VS. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND [LAWS(UTN)-2019-11-81] [REFERRED TO]
JUDGEMENT
-
(1.)This appeal is directed against the two separate impugned orders dated 14.2.2005 passed in Civil Writ Petition No. 6916 of 2004 by both the members of the Division Bench of the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh and against the order dated 26.04.2006 passed in Civil Misc. No. 5016 of 2005 and Civil Misc. No. 6173 of 2005. The brief facts of the case are stated hereunder:-
(2.)The appellant-Institute of law was allotted the land measuring 28,376.23 sq. yards (5.75 acres) in Sector 38-A in the Union Territory of Chandigarh at the rate of Rs.900/- per sq. yard by the administration of Union Territory of Chandigarh. The rate was fixed by the Chandigarh Administration vide its Notification No. 31/1/100-UTFI (4-2002/1823) dated 7.3.2002 issued under the Punjab Development Regulation Act, 1952 fixing the land rates for allotment to educational institutions in the Union Territory of Chandigarh. The allotment of land was made in favour of appellant-Institute for 99 years on lease hold basis with the condition that the initial lease period will be 33 years and renewable for two like periods only if the lessee continues to fulfil all conditions of allotment.
(3.)The respondent No.1, Neeraj Sharma, filed a Writ Petition No.6916 of 2004 before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh questioning the legality and validity of the allotment of land involved in this case urging various grounds.
(2.)The appellant-Institute of law was allotted the land measuring 28,376.23 sq. yards (5.75 acres) in Sector 38-A in the Union Territory of Chandigarh at the rate of Rs.900/- per sq. yard by the administration of Union Territory of Chandigarh. The rate was fixed by the Chandigarh Administration vide its Notification No. 31/1/100-UTFI (4-2002/1823) dated 7.3.2002 issued under the Punjab Development Regulation Act, 1952 fixing the land rates for allotment to educational institutions in the Union Territory of Chandigarh. The allotment of land was made in favour of appellant-Institute for 99 years on lease hold basis with the condition that the initial lease period will be 33 years and renewable for two like periods only if the lessee continues to fulfil all conditions of allotment.
(3.)The respondent No.1, Neeraj Sharma, filed a Writ Petition No.6916 of 2004 before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh questioning the legality and validity of the allotment of land involved in this case urging various grounds.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.