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) 899

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
R.K. AGRAWAL, ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN, JJ.
DELHI STATE INDUSTRIAL & INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD. – APPELLANTS
VS.
JAI KISHAN GOEL AND ORS. – RESPONDENTS
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 10741 OF 2016(Arising out of SLP(Civil)No.29879 of 2016)
Decided On : 08-11-2016

The court's decision was based on the provisions of Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 and previous judgments covering the issue.

Headnote:

Judgments - Land Acquisition - Dismissal of appeal and grant of one year to initiate fresh acquisition proceedings

Fact of the Case:

The appellant's appeal was dismissed as the issue was already covered by previous judgments. The appellant was given one year to initiate fresh acquisition proceedings under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.

Finding of the Court:

The court dismissed the appeal and granted the appellant one year to initiate fresh acquisition proceedings. It also directed the appellant to return the physical possession of the land to the original land owner if no fresh acquisition proceedings were initiated within the specified period.

Issues: Dismissal of appeal, grant of one year to initiate fresh acquisition proceedings, and return of physical possession of the land to the original land owner.

Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the previous judgments covering the issue and the provisions of Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.

Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the appellant was given one year to initiate fresh acquisition proceedings. If no fresh acquisition proceedings were initiated within the specified period, the appellant was directed to return the physical possession of the land to the original land owner.

JUDGMENT

R.K.AGRAWAL, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. The issue, in principle, is covered against the appellant by judgments in Civil Appeal No.8477 of 2016 arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 8467 of 2015 and Civil Appeal No.5811 of 2015 arising out of Special Leave Petition(Civil) No.21545 of 2015. The appeals filed by the requisitioning authority, namely, the Delhi Development Authority, have already been dismissed by this Court.

3. This appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.

4. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of these cases, the appellant is given a period of one year to exercise its liberty granted under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 for initiation of the acquisition proceedings afresh.

5. We make it clear that in case no fresh acquisition proceedings are initiated within the said period of one year from today by issuing a Notification under Section 11 of the Act, the appellant, if in possession, shall return the physical possession of the land to the original land owner.

Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of. 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