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

2017 Supreme(SC) 543

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
KURIAN JOSEPH, R. BANUMATHI, JJ.
DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY - APPELLANT
VERSUS
ISHWAR SINGH AND ORS. - RESPONDENTS
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6078 OF 2017 [@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO. 14419 OF 2017] [@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) .....CC 19842 OF 2016]
Decided On : 02-05-2017

The court's decision is based on the non-payment of compensation and the appellant's right to initiate acquisition proceedings afresh under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.

Headnote:

Compensation - Land Acquisition - Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 - Court dismisses appeal due to non-payment of compensation, but grants appellant six months to initiate acquisition proceedings afresh under Section 24(2) of the Act

Fact of the Case:

The compensation has not been paid to the land owners, leading to the lapse of proceedings.

Finding of the Court:

The court dismisses the appeal, but grants the appellant six months to initiate acquisition proceedings afresh under Section 24(2) of the Act.

Issues: Non-payment of compensation, lapse of proceedings, and the appellant's liberty to initiate acquisition proceedings afresh.

Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision is influenced by the non-payment of compensation and the appellant's right to initiate acquisition proceedings afresh under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.

Final Decision: The appeal is dismissed, but the appellant is given a period of six months to exercise its liberty to initiate acquisition proceedings afresh. If no fresh acquisition proceedings are initiated within one year, the appellant must return the physical possession of the land to the original land owner.

JUDGMENT :

Kurian, J.

1. Delay condoned.

2. Leave granted.

3. Admittedly, the compensation has not been paid to the land owners. Therefore, the High Court is right in its conclusion that the proceedings have lapsed. This appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.

4. However, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, the appellant is given a period of six months 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.

6. 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