Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2016 Supreme(SC) 1276

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Kurian Joseph, Rohinton Fali Nariman, JJ.
Delhi Development Authority - Petitioner
Versus
Vijay Dhawan Huf and others – Respondents
C.A. No. 8533 of 2016 (Arising Out of SLP(Civil) No. 23727 of 2015) with C.A. No. 8727 of 2016 (Arising Out of SLP(Civil) No. 28306 of 2015)
Decided On : 31-08-2016

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Mr. Amrendra Sharan, Sr. Advocate, Mr. Vishnu Saharya, Advocate, Mr. Viresh Saharya, Advocate, for M/s Saharya and Co.
For the Respondent:Mr. Gopal Shankarnarayanan, Advocate, Mr. Mahesh Agarwal, Advocate, Mr. Ankur Saigal, Advocate, Ms. Devika Mohan, Advocate, for Mr. E. C. Agrawala, Advocate.

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

Headnote:
Land Acquisition - Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 - Interpretation of Section 24(2)
Fact of the Case:

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.
Finding of the Court:

The appeals are dismissed, and the appellant is granted one year to initiate fresh acquisition proceedings. If no fresh acquisition proceedings are initiated within the said period, the appellant must return the physical possession of the land to the original land owner.
Issues: Interpretation of Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013
Ratio Decidendi: The court interpreted Section 24(2) of the Act and granted the appellant a period of one year to initiate fresh acquisition proceedings, emphasizing the consequences of failure to do so.
Final Decision: The appeals are dismissed, and the appellant is granted one year to initiate fresh acquisition proceedings. If no fresh acquisition proceedings are initiated within the said period, the appellant must return the physical possession of the land to the original land owner.

JUDGMENT :

Kurian Joseph, J.

Leave granted.

2. The issue, in principle, is covered against the appellant by judgment in Civil Appeal No.8477 of 2016 arising out of Special Leave Petition(Civil)No.8467 of 2015.

3. These appeals are, accordingly, dismissed.

4. 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 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.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document