HARI RAM . vs STATE OF HARYANA . — C.A. No. 5440/2000

Case under Section IV. Status: Disposed.

Disposed

CNR: SCIN010033101999

Filing Date

23-Feb-1999

Registration No

C.A. No. 5440/2000

Diary Number

3310/1999

Order Date

11-Feb-2010

Document Type

Judgment - of Main Case

Disposal Type

Allowed

Last updated 31-May-2026

Acts & Sections

Section IV

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.HARI RAM .

    Adv. HARINDER MOHAN SINGH (Dead / Retired / Elevated)

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.STATE OF HARYANA .

    Adv. KAMAL MOHAN GUPTA

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 11-Feb-2010

    Judgment - of Main CaseView PDF

  3. 11-Feb-2010

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  4. 14-Jan-2010

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  5. 04-Dec-2009

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  6. 09-Oct-2009

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  7. 09-Sep-2009

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  8. 22-Apr-2009

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  9. 15-Apr-2009

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  10. 08-Apr-2009

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  11. 17-Feb-2009

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  12. 16-Oct-2008

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  13. 19-Aug-2008

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  14. 07-May-2008

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  15. 01-Apr-2008

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  16. 13-Mar-2008

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  17. 19-Feb-2008

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  18. 23-Feb-1999

    Case filed

    Registration No. C.A. No. 5440/2000

casestatus.in Summary

Summary: Hari Ram v. State of Haryana, C.A. No. 005440/2000 The Supreme Court allowed eight grouped appeals, holding that Haryana's rejection of land release requests violated Article 14 (equality). HUDA acquired 184.56 acres at Narnaul; the State later released over 40 landowners' plots from acquisition but rejected appellants' identical requests using an October 2007 policy applied to no other landowner. The Court found discriminatory treatment: similarly situated owners under the same acquisition proceedings received different decisions without rational basis, violating equal protection principles. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

Search Another Case