KARNAIL KAUR Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB
LAWS(SC)-2015-1-56
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: PUNJAB & HARYANA)
Decided on January 22,2015

Karnail Kaur Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF PUNJAB Respondents





Cited Judgements :-

KHATIJABEN JIVANBHAI SUMRA VS. STATE OF GUJARAT AND ORS. [LAWS(GJH)-2016-3-246] [REFERRED TO]
B. RAJAGOPALAN VS. THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU AND ORS. [LAWS(MAD)-2015-9-197] [REFERRED TO]
NANA VS. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS. [LAWS(BOM)-2016-1-149] [REFERRED TO]
SYED MOHAMMED ALI WARSI AND OTHERS VS. LAND ACQUISITION & REHABILITATION OFFICER [LAWS(MPH)-2017-12-15] [REFERRED TO]
SHIV GAUR AND OTHERS VS. STATE OF U P AND OTHERS [LAWS(ALL)-2016-5-460] [REFERRED]
K.G. PRAMILA AND ORS. VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ORS. [LAWS(KAR)-2015-9-10] [REFERRED TO]
COUNCIL OF SCIENTIFIC AND INDUSTRIAL RESEARCH (CSI VS. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AND OTHERS [LAWS(HPH)-2016-9-219] [REFERRED]
DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY VS. SUNIL KHATRI [LAWS(SC)-2022-5-79] [REFERRED TO]
WORKING FRIENDS COOPERTIVE HOUSE BUILDING SOCIETY LTD VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [LAWS(SC)-2015-10-19] [REFERRED TO]
SUNIL JANGDE VS. STATE OF C.G. AND ORS. [LAWS(CHH)-2015-8-31] [REFERRED TO]
BIMLENDRA MOHAN PRATAP MISHRA AND ANOTHER VS. STATE OF U.P. THROU. ITS PRIN. SECY. URBAN PLANNING & DEVP. & ORS. [LAWS(ALL)-2017-2-34] [REFERRED TO]
MEHTAB LAIQ AHMED SHAIKH VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2017-10-17] [REFERRED TO]
KANTI MAHANTY ROHINI VS. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND [LAWS(JHAR)-2016-8-9] [REFERRED TO]
DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY VS. SUKHBIR SINGH & OTHERS [LAWS(SC)-2016-9-11] [REFERRED TO]
K.M. CHIKKATHAYAMMA AND ORS. VS. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ORS. [LAWS(KAR)-2016-3-75] [REFERRED TO]
PREM CHAND BHAGERIA VS. LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER & ORS [LAWS(RAJ)-2015-8-216] [REFERRED]
THE TAMIL NADU HOUSING BOARD VS. K.S. AIYADURAI AND ORS. [LAWS(MAD)-2017-12-131] [REFERRED TO]
C. BALACHANDRAN AND ORS. VS. THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU AND ORS. [LAWS(MAD)-2015-3-560] [REFERRED TO]
PT. RAVISHANKER SHUKLA UNIVERSITY VS. ARUN KUMAR AGRAWAL S/O LATE HARISHANKER AGRAWAL [LAWS(CHH)-2015-7-63] [REFERRED TO]
KAMALCHAND VS. STATE OF M P AND OTHERS [LAWS(MPH)-2016-3-145] [REFERRED]
INDORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY VS. SHAILENDRA [LAWS(SC)-2018-2-88] [REFERRED TO]
ASHWATHA AND ORS. VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ORS. [LAWS(KAR)-2015-11-314] [REFERRED TO]
S HAREESH S/O LATE N SHANTHARAM VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY [LAWS(KAR)-2018-4-101] [REFERRED TO]
PARASRAM PAL AND ANOTHER VS. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS [LAWS(MPH)-2015-10-103] [REFERRED TO]
PAWAN KUMAR AGGARWAL VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [LAWS(SC)-2016-4-49] [REFERRED TO]
KARAN SINGH AND ORS. VS. STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS. [LAWS(SC)-2015-5-103] [REFERRED TO]
SHUSHILA BAI & 6 OTHERS VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & 4 OTHERS [LAWS(MPH)-2017-12-92] [REFERRED TO]
INDORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY VS. MANOHARLAL ETC. [LAWS(SC)-2020-3-83] [REFERRED TO]
ARUN KUMAR NEVATIA AND ORS. VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ORS. [LAWS(KAR)-2015-6-364] [REFERRED TO]
EVERSHINE MONUMENTS (EARLIER KNOWN AS M/S. GRANITE EXPORTERS) VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS [LAWS(KAR)-2017-12-98] [REFERRED TO]
D. BALARAMAN VS. THE GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU AND ORS. [LAWS(MAD)-2015-12-177] [REFERRED TO]
MANISH KUMAR VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(SC)-2021-1-34] [REFERRED TO]
DHIRAJ AMBALAL PATEL VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2019-9-25] [REFERRED TO]
RADHA SOAMI SATSANG BEAS VS. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND OTHERS [LAWS(ALL)-2016-4-198] [REFERRED TO]
PADMINI PANDA VS. PRAMILA SAMANTARAY [LAWS(ORI)-2016-1-22] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

- (1.)The abovementioned applications are filed by the appellants for allowing the concerned appeals in terms of Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (in short 'the Act of 2013'). The appellant-land owners have come to this Court questioning the correctness of the common judgment and order dated 19.04.2011 passed by the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in Civil Writ Petition No.5512 of 2001 and batch petitions by which the High Court dismissed the Writ Petitions filed by the appellants herein.
(2.)As all the appeals are identical involving similar question of law, for the sake of brevity we will discuss the facts of the case in C.A. No. 7424 of 2013 which are stated hereunder:
The appellants are original residents and have their houses along with their land in village-Sohana, Tehsil Mohali in District Roop Nagar (Punjab). The State of Punjab has framed a special Act known as 'The Punjab Regional and Town Planning and Development Act, 1995' (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1995') to construct a residential urban estate with the main object to undertake urban development and housing programme. On 21.02.2000, the State of Punjab through Secretary, Punjab Housing and Development, the respondent No.1 herein, issued notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short 'the L.A. Act') for the purpose of setting up a residential urban estate in the area of revenue estate of village Mauli Baidwan, SAS Nagar (Mohali). The said acquisition notification covered a total extent of 1264.84 acres of land in four villages -Mauli Baidwan, Sohana, Raipur Khurd and Lakhnausr in Roopnagar district of Punjab out of which the land of the appellants in the present batch of appeals constituted 102 acres of land in small pockets of the said 1264.84 acres. Objections were raised against the same by the appellants under Section 5A alleging that in the year 1996 the Punjab State Government had framed a scheme called "Farmers Friendly and Land Pooling Exchange Scheme", and as per the contents of the said Scheme, for every acre of land transferred by the land owners to Punjab Urban Development Authority (PUDA), the land owners will be given back approximately 1000 square yards after development and the land owners were advised not to sell their land. Therefore, the appellants objected to the said notification under Section 4 of the L.A. Act, as the same was violative of the principles of promissory estoppel. The said objections were not decided by the Land Acquisition Officer. Thereafter, on 02.02.2001, the notification under Section 6 of the L.A. Act was published.

(3.)The appellants filed writ petition No. 5512 of 2001 before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh alleging inter alia that respondent no. 1 has started acquiring the land without complying with the provisions and in utter violation of the Act of 1995 & therefore the acquisition proceedings are bad in law and liable to be quashed.
;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.