SUBHASH AGARWAL Vs STATE OF HARYANA .
Bench: KURIAN JOSEPH,ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN
Case number: C.A. No.-000283-000283 / 2016
Diary number: 3906 / 2015
Advocates: GAURAV AGRAWAL Vs
Page 1
1
NON-REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 283 OF 2016
[@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO. 7246 OF 2015] SUBHASH AGARWAL & ORS. Appellant(s)
VERSUS STATE OF HARYANA & ORS. Respondent(s)
J U D G M E N T KURIAN, J. 1. Leave granted. 2. The appellants approached the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in CWP No. 21211 of 2014 with the following prayer :-
"(a) Praying for issuance of a Writ in
the Nature of Certiorari and of any
other appropriate Writ, Direction or
Order and for quashing of the order dt.
24.06.2014 at Annexure P-18 to the
extent of applicability of the 'current
rates' which in the humble pleading of
the petitioner are not applicable as
prayed in the aforesaid pleadings.
(b) Praying that the alleged
acquisition proceedings u/s 6 of the
Land Acquisition Act 1894 may kindly be
declared to have 'lapsed' & disputed
land be kindly released /transferred in
the name of the petitioner on the
Page 2
2
aforesaid grounds.
(c) For kindly issuing a direction by
holding that the land of petitioners
already stood released in the view of
letter No. R.A-1-79/44484 dt.
07.07.1979 Annexure P-4 & upholding the
agreement dt. 08.04.1981 Annexure P-9.
(d) Praying that the records of the
respondent be kindly summoned before
this Hon'ble Court.
(e) The Hon'ble Court is being prayed
to grant any other relief as deem fit
and proper under the facts &
circumstances and nature of the case."
3. The Writ Petition was dismissed by the High Court in a cryptic manner and the impugned Judgment reads as follows:-
"The petitioners have prayed for
quashing the notifications dated
04.11.1977 (Annexure P2) and 01.11.1980
(Annexure P8) issued under Sections 4
and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act,
1894.
The land of the petitioners was
situated in village Mewla Maharajpur,
Tehsil Ballabgarh, District Faridabad.
Page 3
3
The acquition has been done more than
37 years ago.
No ground for interference is made
out as the acquisition proceedings are
already complete
Dismissed"
4. In our opinion, the approach taken by the High Court is not proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. The High Court should have addressed the issues and should have passed orders on the main reliefs. We refrain ourselves from making further observations in this regard. 5. Therefore, we set aside the impugned Judgment and remand the Writ Petition to the High Court, to be considered on merits. 6. We make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case and it will be open to the parties to raise all available contentions before the High Court. 7. In view of the above, the Civil Appeal is disposed of with no order as to costs.
.......................J. [ KURIAN JOSEPH ]
.......................J. [ ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN ] New Delhi; January 18, 2016.