SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2023 Supreme(SC) 25

M. R. SHAH, S. RAVINDRA BHAT
State of Haryana – Appellant
Versus
Sushila – Respondent


Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. B.K. Satija, AAG Dr. Monika Gusain, AOR Ms. S. Harini, Adv.

JUDGMENT :

M.R. SHAH, J.

1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order dated 05.12.2017 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in CWP No.15720 of 2014 by which the High Court has allowed the said writ petition and has declared that the acquisition with respect to the land in question is deemed to have lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act 2013’), the State of Haryana has preferred the present appeal.

2. At the outset, it is required to be noted that before the High Court it was the case on behalf of the private respondents herein original writ petitioners that the compensation with respect to the land in question has not been paid to them and even the possession of the lands in question is with them and therefore, in view of Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013 the acquisition with respect to the land in question is deemed to have lapsed as neither the possession has been taken over nor the compensation for the acquired land has been paid.

2.1 Before the High Court a written statement was filed by the La


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 telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top