The Punjab and Haryana High Court has upheld the land acquisition of the Government of Haryana in the National Capital Region (NCR), given that both the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and the National Capital Region Planning Board Act (NCRPB Act) serve separate objectives and do not override each other.
According to the NCRPB Act, no development project or plan can be implemented within the NCR without prior approval of sub-regional plan or master plan from NOCRPB.
Justice Sureshwar Thakur And Justice Vikas Suri Said, “When acts (Supra) are occupied in different regions, apart from this, when neither (Supra) works is there, any provision exists (S) Where S) where either 1985 work or work of 1894 is, thus, when both (Supra) do not affect the act, and this is not prepared to pre -priced. 1985. 1985. 1985.
The court was hearing a petition filed by Rajbir Singh, who challenged the land acquisition proceedings taken by HSVP (Haryana Shehar Development Authority) at Para, Rohtak, to develop an area of Rohtak, Haryana.
It was argued that the acquisition is illegal as it violates the National Capital Region Planning Board Act, 1985, as Rohtak is part of NCR and the necessary approval was never received from the NCR Plan Board for sub-regional or master plan.
Reliance was placed on an RTI answer, confirmed that no such scheme was approved. Despite this, the Haryana Authority (HSVP) proceeded with land acquisition, which the petitioner claims that makes the acquisition invalid, the couple.
After submitting, the court said that the NCRPB Act is about the employed regional development and land acquisition is aimed at public use.
“The area occupied by the Act of 1985, but is completely different from the area occupied by the Act of 1894, as the Act of 1985, it is for planned development, while, the area occupied by the Act of 1894, is for the acquisition (S), the area occupied by the Act of 1894, the power of the eminent domain, is for the acquisition (S). The court said.
Since both laws serve different objectives and do not override each other, the court said that land acquisition in Sector 6, Rohtak under the Land Acquisition Act is valid.
As a result, the argument was rejected.
Mr. Mohit Rathi advocates the petitioner.
Mr. Ankur Mittal, Addl. AG, Haryana along with Ms. Swanel Jaswal, Adel. Eg Haryana, Shri PP Char, Senior Dug, Haryana.
Mr. Gaurav Bansal, DAG, Haryana and Mr. Karan Jindal, Assistant Egg Haryana.
Title: Rajbir Singh vs India and ORS Association
Click here to read/download the order
