MANGAT RAM Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant writ petition became remanded by the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated 2E02.2024. The operative part of the said order is extracted hereinafter.

(2.) The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners argues, that since the declaration as became passed under Sec. 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1894'), was so passed on 30/12/2014, thereby when the date of making of the said declaration, thus occurred subsequent to the coming into force of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation And Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act of 2013'). Therefore, he argues that no legal relevance can become assigned to the issuance of a notification under Sec. 4 on 31/12/2013.

(3.) Therefore, he submits that the notification(s) (supra), are required to be quashed, and, set aside, thus on the ground, that since on the date of makings of Sec. 6 notification, the 'Act of 2013' had assumed force thus, thereby the proceedings for acquisition were required to be launched under the 'Act of 2013', than under the 'Act of 1894'.