Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
KURIAN JOSEPH, ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN, JJ.
D.D.A. – Appellant
Versus
Raman Grover and Ors. – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 4995 of 2016 [@ Special Leave Petition (C) No. 6250 of 2015]
Decided On : 10-05-2016
Section 24(2) - Land Acquisition - The court declared that the land acquisition proceedings lapsed due to the operation of Section 24(2) of The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant challenged the High Court's judgment declaring the lapsed land acquisition proceedings due to Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act. The possession of 1100 sq. yards of land had not been taken by the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) despite the award being passed in 1986.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that as the possession had not been taken by DDA for the 1100 sq. yards of land, Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act applied, and the land acquisition proceedings were deemed to have lapsed. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed with no costs.
Issues: The issue revolved around the application of Section 24(2) of The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, and the failure of DDA to take possession of the land despite the award being passed in 1986.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the clear application of Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act, which deemed the land acquisition proceedings to have lapsed due to the failure of DDA to take possession of the land within the stipulated time frame.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and no costs were awarded.
JUDGMENT :
Kurian, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. The appellant is before this Court, aggrieved by the Judgment of the High Court, whereby the High Court gave a declaration that the entire land acquisition proceedings have lapsed in view of the operation of Section 24(2) of The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.
3. Sh. Amrendra Sharan, learned senior counsel appearing for Delhi Development Authority (DDA), on instruction, faily concedes that as far as 1100 sq. yards of land belonging to Respondent No. 1 is concerned, the possession has not been taken by DDA, though the award had been passed as far back as in 1986. In that view of the matter, Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act squarely applies in the case and the land acquisition proceedings in respect of the said extent of 1100 sq. yards belonging to Respondent No. 1 shall be deemed to have lapsed.
4. In that view of the matter, the appeal is dismissed.
5. No costs.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
