Phool Chand and ors. Vs. I.R.C.C., New Delhi and anr.

Phool Chand and ors. vs i.R.C.C., New Delhi and anr.

Type Court Judgment Court Delhi Decided Feb 27, 2013

~1 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/955713

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/955713
Court: Delhi High Court
Judge: Valmiki J. Mehta
Decided On: Feb 27, 2013
Subject: Land Acquisition

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Land Acquisition

Key legal issue: Land Acquisition

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Phool Chand and ors.

Respondent

i.R.C.C., New Delhi and anr.

Advocate Mr. Sanjiv K. Jha

Excerpt

* in the high court of delhi at new delhi + wp(c) no.3895/1999 % february 27, 2013 phool chand & ors. through: .... petitioners none. versus i.r.c.c., new delhi & anr. .... respondents through: mr. sanjiv k. jha, adv. coram: hon'ble mr. justice valmiki j.mehta to be referred to the reporter or not? valmiki j.mehta, j (oral) 1. this writ petition qua the petitioner no.1 is dismissed adopting the reasoning of points 2 & 3 of the grounds urged on behalf of the respondents as given today while dismissing the wp(c) no.895/1997 titled as rajiv mahendru & anr. vs. chairman-md, i.r.c.c., new delhi & anr.. so far as the petitioner no. 2-sh. man mohan sharma is concerned, he has already given a letter which is filed as annexure-a by the respondent no.1 to its counter affidavit whereby sh.man mohan sharma has said that he has taken vrs and therefore he is not interested in continuing the case and withdraws the petition.2. the writ petition is accordingly dismissed on merits so far as the petitioner no.1 is concerned and dismissed as withdrawn so far as the petitioner no.2 is concerned. valmiki j.mehta, j february 27 2013 ak

Full Judgment

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + WP(C) No.3895/1999 % February 27, 2013 PHOOL CHAND & ORS. Through: .... Petitioners none. versus I.R.C.C., NEW DELHI & ANR. .... Respondents Through: Mr. Sanjiv K. Jha, Adv. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.

MEHTA To be referred to the Reporter or not? VALMIKI J.

MEHTA, J (ORAL) 1. This writ petition qua the petitioner No.1 is dismissed adopting the reasoning of points 2 & 3 of the grounds urged on behalf of the respondents as given today while dismissing the WP(C) No.895/1997 titled as Rajiv Mahendru & Anr. Vs. Chairman-MD, I.R.C.C., New Delhi & Anr.. So far as the petitioner No. 2-Sh. Man Mohan Sharma is concerned, he has already given a letter which is filed as Annexure-A by the respondent No.1 to its counter affidavit whereby Sh.Man Mohan Sharma has said that he has taken VRS and therefore he is not interested in continuing the case and withdraws the petition.

2. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed on merits so far as the petitioner No.1 is concerned and dismissed as withdrawn so far as the petitioner No.2 is concerned. VALMIKI J.

MEHTA, J FEBRUARY 27 2013 ak

Same Court & Year Delhi · 2013 Same Parties Phool Chand and ors. vs i.R.C.C., New Delhi and anr. Same Subject Land Acquisition Same Judge Valmiki J. Mehta