JUDGMENT

R.F. Nariman, J

This batch of cases relates to whether the proviso contained in Section 24 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 ["2013 Act"] is a proviso to Section 24(1)(b) or whether it is a proviso to Section 24(2). The reason for this confusion is because of the placement of the proviso of sub-section (2) of Section 24 of the 2013 Act. This is a case where the old British ditty comes to mind:

"I'm the Parliament's draftsman,

I compose the country's laws,

And of half the litigation I'm undoubtedly the cause [See Eera (through Dr. Manjula Krippendoif) v. State (NCT of Delhi) and Anr., (2017) 15 SCC 133 at paragraph 115]

2. The High Court of Delhi, in a judgment dated 21.05.2015, namely, Tarun Pal Singh v. Lieutenant Governor, Government of NCT of Delhi and Ors., W.P.(C) 8596/2014["Tarun Pal Singh"], had held that the said proviso would govern Section 24(1)(b), and not Section 24(2). This judgment has been followed in a number of other judgments of the same High Court. DDA has filed appeals against Tarun Pal Singh (supra) and all the judgments that have followed in its wake. By a judgment of the Divisi