SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2016 Supreme(SC) 398

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
KURIAN JOSEPH, ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN, JJ.
Delhi Development Authority – Appellant
Versus
Poonam Bhatia & Ors. – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 4800 of 2016 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 30195 of 2015)
Decided On : 03-05-2016

Lapse of land acquisition under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013

Headnote:

Section 24(2) - Land Acquisition - The court dismissed the appeal by the Delhi Development Authority, upholding the High Court's judgment that the acquisition of the land belonging to the respondents had lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, as physical possession was not taken and no compensation was paid.

Fact of the Case:

The Delhi Development Authority appealed the High Court's judgment declaring the lapse of land acquisition due to non-possession and non-payment of compensation.

Finding of the Court:

The court dismissed the appeal, stating that the appellant did not dispute the lack of possession, and therefore, there was no justification for filing the appeal.

Issues: Lapse of land acquisition under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act

Ratio Decidendi: Physical possession not taken, no compensation paid, and lapse of land acquisition under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act

Final Decision: The appeal by the Delhi Development Authority was dismissed with no costs.

JUDGMENT :

Kurian, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. The Delhi Development Authority has come up in appeal, aggrieved by the Judgment dated 11.11.2014 passed by the High Court of Delhi, whereby the acquisition of the property referred to in the Judgment in question of the land belonging to the respondents has been declared to have lapsed in view of the provisions of Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.

3. On the finding that the possession has not been taken, the relevant portion of the impugned judgment is extracted below:

“It is an admitted position that neither physical possession of the subject land has been taken by the land acquiring agency, nor has any compensation been paid to the petitioners. The award was made more than five years prior to the commencement of the 2013 Act. All the ingredients of section 24(2) of the 2013 Act as interpreted by the Supreme Court and this Court in the following decisions satisfied.....”

4. In the above circumstances, the appellant having not disputed the question of possession, before the High Court, there is no justification in filing the appeal before this Court.

5. The appeal is hence dismissed. No costs.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top