Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
KURIAN JOSEPH, ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN, JJ.
Delhi Development Authority – Appellant
Versus
Hari Prakash & Ors. – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 9719 of 2016 (@ Special Leave Petition (C) No. 28376 of 2016) (Arising out of CC No. 14007 of 2016)
Decided On : 26-09-2016
Land Acquisition - Lapsed Proceedings - The court upheld the declaration that the land acquisition proceedings had lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act, but granted the appellant the liberty to initiate fresh acquisition proceedings within a year.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant challenged the declaration that the land acquisition proceedings had lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act, as possession had not been taken and compensation had not been paid for the subject land.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the possession had not been taken and compensation had not been paid for the subject land, and upheld the declaration that the land acquisition proceedings had lapsed. The appellant was granted the liberty to initiate fresh acquisition proceedings within a year.
Issues: Validity of declaration of lapsed land acquisition proceedings under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act, possession of the subject land, and payment of compensation.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the non-possession of the subject land and non-payment of compensation, which led to the conclusion that the land acquisition proceedings had lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, but the appellant was granted the liberty to initiate fresh acquisition proceedings within a year.
JUDGMENT :
Kurian, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. The appellant is before this Court aggrieved by the 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 (hereinafter referred to as “2013 Act”).
3. The learned counsel appearing for Delhi Development Authority (DDA), on instruction, fairly concedes that as far as the land measuring 01 bighas 09 biswas belonging to Respondent No. 1 is concerned, the possession has not been taken by the DDA and compensation has not been paid, though the award had been passed as far back as in 2004. In that view of the matter, we see no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment of the High Court.
4. However, the declaration as above and the consequent dismissal of this appeal is without prejudice to the liberty available to the appellant to initiate proceedings afresh for the acquisition of the subject land under the provisions of the 2013 Act.
5. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, the appellant is given a period of one year to exercise its liberty granted under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act for initiation of the acquisition proceedings afresh.
6. In that view of the matter, the appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to 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
