WOMEN EDUCATION TRUST Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Leave granted.

(2.) The importance of Section 5A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, 'the Act'), which represents statutory embodiment of one of the facets of the rules of natural justice, i.e., audi alteram partem, has been highlighted in several judgments of this Court including Nandeshwar Prasad v. U.P. Govt., 1964 3 SCR 425, Munshi Singh v. Union of India, 1973 2 SCC 337, Narayan Govind Gavate v. State of Maharashtra, 1977 1 SCC 133, Shyam Nandan Prasad v. State of Bihar, 1993 4 JT 590, Union of India v. Mukesh Hans, 2004 8 SCC 14, Krishan Lal Arneja, 2004 7 JT 526, Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. v. Darius Shapur Chenai, 2005 8 JT 470, Essco Fabs (P) Ltd. v. State of Haryana, 2008 12 JT 315, Babu Ram v. State of Haryana, 2009 13 JT 99, Anand Singh v. State of U.P., 2010 8 JT 15, Dev Sharan v. State of U.P., 2011 3 JT 102, Radhy Shyam v. State of U.P., 2011 4 JT 524, Raghbir Singh Sehrawat v. State of Haryana, 2011 13 JT 549, Kamal Trading (P) Ltd. v. State of West Bengal, 2012 2 SCC 25, Surinder Singh Brar v. Union of India, 2012 10 JT 295, and Usha Stud and Agricultural Farms Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Haryana, 2013 5 Scale 118.

(3.) In Raghbir Singh Sehrawat's case, this Court referred to earlier precedents and observed: