HEERA LAL Vs. STATE OF HARYANA and ORS.
EmailAppeal: CIVIL APPEAL NO. 507 OF 2016
Petitioner: HEERA LAL
Respondent: STATE OF HARYANA and ORS.
Judges: KURIAN JOSEPH , ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN
Date of Judgment: Jan 22, 2016
JUDGEMENT:
NON- CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 507 OF 2016 (Arising out of SLP ( C) No. 1440 of 2015)
HEERA LAL APPELLANT
VERSUS
STATE OF HARYANA & ORS. RESPONDENTS
J U D G M E N T
KURIAN,J.
Leave granted.
2. The appellant approached this Court challenging the land acquisition proceedings. The main ground of challenge was that dispensation of Section 5-A inquiry was unjustified and unwarranted. However, the High Court declined to interfere with the acquisition.
3. But in the impugned order the High Court ordered that the appellant would be entitled to a plot as per Rehabilitation and Resettlement Policy of the Government as submitted by Respondent Nos. 1 to 3.
4. In view of the efflux of time and intervening developments, we do not think it would be proper for this Court now to consider the matter on merits. Therefore, – 2 –
this appeal is disposed of directing the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 to allot and hand over a plot as per Rehabilitation and Resettlement Policy of the Government within a period of twelve weeks from today. In case the same is not done within twelve weeks, the appellant will be entitled to additional compensation of Rs.1,000/- per day till it is handed over.
5. No costs.
…………………J. [KURIAN JOSEPH]
………………..J. [ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN
NEW DELHI; JANUARY 22, 2016
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 507 OF 2016 (Arising out of SLP ( C) No. 1440 of 2015)
HEERA LAL APPELLANT
VERSUS
STATE OF HARYANA & ORS. RESPONDENTS
J U D G M E N T
KURIAN,J.
Leave granted.
2. The appellant approached this Court challenging the land acquisition proceedings. The main ground of challenge was that dispensation of Section 5-A inquiry was unjustified and unwarranted. However, the High Court declined to interfere with the acquisition.
3. But in the impugned order the High Court ordered that the appellant would be entitled to a plot as per Rehabilitation and Resettlement Policy of the Government as submitted by Respondent Nos. 1 to 3.
4. In view of the efflux of time and intervening developments, we do not think it would be proper for this Court now to consider the matter on merits. Therefore, – 2 –
this appeal is disposed of directing the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 to allot and hand over a plot as per Rehabilitation and Resettlement Policy of the Government within a period of twelve weeks from today. In case the same is not done within twelve weeks, the appellant will be entitled to additional compensation of Rs.1,000/- per day till it is handed over.
5. No costs.
…………………J. [KURIAN JOSEPH]
………………..J. [ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN
NEW DELHI; JANUARY 22, 2016
