Faizabad-Ayodhya Development Authority vs Rajesh Kumar Pandey

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2022 Supreme(SC) 488

M. R. SHAH, B. V. NAGARATHNA
Faizabad-Ayodhya Development Authority – Appellant
Versus
Rajesh Kumar Pandey – Respondent

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Rakesh Uttamchandra Upadhyay, AOR Ms. Aarti Upadhyay Mishra, Adv. Mr. Rishabh Kumar Pandey, Adv. Mr. Mridul Singh Vats, Adv. Mr. R.K. Singh, Adv. Mrs. Neeraj Singh, Adv. Mr. Kumar Gaurav, Adv. Ms. Ritu Reniwal, Adv. Mr. Ajay Chaudhary, Adv. Mr. Praveen Pathak, Adv. Mr. Sajith. P, AOR
For Respondent(s): Mr. Ankur Yadav, AOR Mr. Rudreshwar Singh, Adv. Ms. Isha Singh, Adv. Mr. Kaushik Poddar, AOR Mr. Nishit Agrawal, AOR Mr. Shery Kapoor, Adv. Mr. Harsh Mishra, Adv. Ms. Upasna Agarwal, Adv. Mr. Rajeev Kumar Dubey, Adv. Mr. Ashiwan Mishra, Adv. Mr. Anurag Tiwari, Adv. Mr. Kamlendra Mishra, AOR Mr. Bhakti Vardhan Singh, AOR Mr. Pukhrambam Ramesh Kumar, AOR Mr. Karun Sharma, Adv. Mr. Mohan Singh, Adv.

JUDGMENT :

M.R. SHAH, J.

1. As common questions of law and facts arise in this group of appeals, they have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment and order.

2. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the respective judgments and orders/orders passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad passed in respective writ petitions preferred by the private respondents herein-original landowners by which the High Court has disposed of the said writ petitions by directing the respective appellants-Development Authorities to pay the compensation to the original landowners as per “The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act 2013)” on the ground that on the date on which the Act, 2013 came into force, no award under Section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act 1894”) was declared with respect to the lands acquired, the respective Development Authorities have preferred the present appeals.

Civil Appeal No. 2915 of 2022

3. Land totally measuring 17.172 hectares in village Ranopali, District Faizabad was requisitioned by the F

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2022 Supreme(SC) 488

M. R. SHAH, B. V. NAGARATHNAFaizabad-Ayodhya Development Authority – AppellantVersusRajesh Kumar Pandey – Respondent

Cases Referred (3)

M. R. SHAH, B. V. NAGARATHNA
Faizabad-Ayodhya Development Authority – Appellant
Versus
Rajesh Kumar Pandey – Respondent