Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2016 Supreme(SC) 1565

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
KURIAN JOSEPH, SHIVA KIRTI SINGH, JJ.
Delhi Development Authority - Appellants
Versus
Veena Mahajan and Ors. - Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 8147 of 2016 (@ Special Leave Petition (C) No. 18200 of 2015) With Civil Appeal No. 8148 of 2016 (@Special Leave Petition (C) No. 32641 of 2015), Civil Appeal No. 8149 of 2016 (@Special Leave Petition (C) No. 7011 of 2016), Civil Appeal No. 8150 of 2016 (@Special Leave Petition (C) No. 7014 of 2016), Civil Appeal No. 8151 of 2016 (@Special Leave Petition (C) No. 9899 of 2016), Civil Appeal No. 8152 of 2016 (@Special Leave Petition (C) No. 10189 of 2016), Civil Appeal No. 8153 of 2016 (@Special Leave Petition (C) No. 9898 of 2016)
Decided On : 16-08-2016

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellants : Ajit Kumar Sinha, R.K. Rathore, Anshuman Srivastava, Shadman Ali, R.S. Nagar, Satya Siddiqui, Bibhu Shankar Mishra, D.S. Mahra, Ms. Garima Prasad, Ms. Binu Tamta, Vishnu B. Saharya, Viresh B. Saharya, (for M/s Saharya & Co.), Ashwani Kumar, Rahul Bhatia, Ms. Monika, Sukrit R. Kapoor, Ms. Rachna Srivastava, Jagjit Singh Chhabra
For the Respondents: Pankaj Vivek, Krishan Kumar, T.N. Singh, Vikas K. Singh, Umang Tripathi, Atul Kumar, Vikas Pandey, Ms. Archana Kumari, Ms. Sweety Singh, Rajiv Sharma, Ateev Mathur, Ms. Richa Oberoi, Gagan Gupta, Bankey Bihari, Ms. S. Janjani

The application of Section 24(2) of the Act based on the timing of the awards and the failure to take possession led to the declaration that the acquisitions had lapsed.

Headnote:
Section 24(2) - Land Acquisition - The court held that since the awards were passed five years prior to the coming into force of The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, and possession had not been taken, Section 24(2) of the Act applied, leading to the declaration that the acquisitions had lapsed.
Fact of the Case:

The awards were passed five years prior to the date of coming into force of The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, and possession had not been taken.
Finding of the Court:

The court dismissed the appeals based on the application of Section 24(2) of the Act, leading to the declaration that the acquisitions had lapsed.
Issues:
Ratio Decidendi: The application of Section 24(2) of The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, based on the timing of the awards and the failure to take possession.
Final Decision: The appeals were dismissed with no costs.

JUDGMENT :

Kurian, J.

Leave granted.

2. It is not in dispute that in all these appeals, the awards are passed five years prior to 01.01.2014, the date of coming into force of The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 is dated 01.01.2014 and that there was no stay operating in any of the cases of the respondents and yet, possession has not been taken. Therefore, Section 24(2) of the Act has to apply and the acquisitions are to be declared as lapsed.

3. In that view of the matter, the appeals are dismissed.

No costs.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document