Rajiv Jain vs State of U. P. - 2017 Supreme(SC) 1644

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2017 Supreme(SC) 1644

ARUN MISHRA, MOHAN M.SHANTANAGOUDAR
Rajiv Jain – Appellant
Versus
State of U. P. – Respondent

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellants : Mr. Ravindra Kumar, Mr. Pankaj Bhatia, Mr. Nipun Goel, Mr. T. Mahipal
For the Respondents: Mr. Mukesh K. Giri, Mr. Garvesh Kabra, Mr. Ravindra Kumar, Mr. Vinay Garg, Mr. Gaurav Srivastava, Ms. Deepam Garg, Ms. Pareena Swaroop, Mr. Gaurav Srivastava, Mr. Anuvrat Sharma

ORDER :

IN CIVIL APPEAL No(s). 1423 & 142 4 OF 2013

No ground is made out so as to interfere with the impugned judgment, since the Award has been passed, possession has been taken and the development has taken place.

2. The provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (in short 'the 2013 Act') also does not come to rescue of the appellant. Since the reference had been sought under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, it is open to the appellants to pursue the same. Decision of Pune Municipal Corporation & Anr. vs. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki & Ors. [2014(3) SCC 183] is not applicable in the facts and circumstances of this case.

3. In the instant cases, it was open to the appellants to receive the compensation under the protest before Land Acquisition Officer and to seek the reference for its enhancement. Since the appellants have sought the reference for enhancement of compensation, in case they have not received compensation they themselves are responsible for it. It is open to them to ask reference court for disbursement in case award has been passed.

4. Consequently, the appeals are dismissed.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document