HARI SINGH & ORS. versus STATE OF U.P. AND ORS.

HARI SINGH & ORS. versus STATE OF U.P. AND ORS.

Any interference in the land acquisition proceedings, challenged by writ petition after two and a half years, is likely to cause serious public prejudice, and the appeal should fail on the ground of delay. Where there are disputed questions of fact regarding ownership and existence of structures, writ jurisdiction under Article 226 is inappropriate. The order made under section 17(4) exempting section 5-A is not bad in law even if there is some administrative delay.

Parties
Appellant: Hari Singh; Appellant: Pooran Chand; Appellant: Munna Lal; Respondent: State of Uttar Pradesh; Respondent: Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti, Kheragarh
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
06 April 1984
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal by Special Leave
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Delay/laches, Urgency Proceedings, Public Purpose, Writ Jurisdiction, Section 17 Exemption
Land Acquisition Constitutional Law Delay/laches Urgency Proceedings Public Purpose Writ Jurisdiction Section 17 Exemption

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Hari Singh

Appellant

Pooran Chand

Appellant

Munna Lal

Appellant

State of Uttar Pradesh

Respondent

Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti, Kheragarh

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal by Special Leave

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether writ petition challenging land acquisition can be dismissed on grounds of delay/laches
  2. 2 Whether section 17(4) exemption of section 5-A is valid when urgency is disputed
  3. 3 Whether High Court can interfere where facts are disputed in land acquisition cases

Ratio Decidendi

Any interference in the land acquisition proceedings, challenged by writ petition after two and a half years, is likely to cause serious public prejudice, and the appeal should fail on the ground of delay. Where there are disputed questions of fact regarding ownership and existence of structures, writ jurisdiction under Article 226 is inappropriate. The order made under section 17(4) exempting section 5-A is not bad in law even if there is some administrative delay.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs.
  • No interference with High Court order dismissing writ petition.