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) 1345

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
KURIAN JOSEPH, C. NAGAPPAN, JJ.
Delhi Development Authority - Appellant
Versus
Suraj Prakash Batra and Ors – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 8695 of 2016, (Arising out of S.L.P. (Civil) No.23089 of 2016).
Decided on : 31-08-2016.

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioners:Ms. Binu Tamta and Mr. Dhruv Tamta, Advocate.

The appellant is granted one year to exercise its liberty under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 for initiating acquisition proceedings afresh.

Headnote:

Judgment - Land Acquisition - Appellant given one year 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

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 appeal is dismissed, and the appellant is given one year to initiate acquisition proceedings afresh. If no fresh acquisition proceedings are initiated within the said period, the appellant, if in possession, shall 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 appellant is granted one year to exercise its liberty under Section 24(2) of the Act for initiating acquisition proceedings afresh.

Final Decision: The appeal is dismissed, and the appellant is given one year 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.

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. This appeal is, 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
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