M. R. SHAH, C. T. RAVIKUMAR
Delhi Development Authority – Appellant
Versus
Rambir – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
M.R. Shah, J.
1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in Writ Petition (C) No. 5441 of 2017 by which the High Court has allowed the said writ petition and has declared that the acquisition proceedings initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as “Act, 1894”) with regard 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 “Act, 2013”), the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) has preferred the present appeal.
2. Having heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respective parties and having gone through the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court, it appears that it was the specific case on behalf of the LAC/DDA before the High Court and so stated in the counter filed that the possession of the land in question was taken over and handed over to the beneficiary department in the year 2007. Despite the above and relying upon the earlier decision of this Court in the case of Pune Municipal Co
Possession taken or compensation paid prevents a lapse under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013.
Lapse of land acquisition proceeding – Landowners who had refused to accept compensation or who sought reference for higher compensation, cannot claim that acquisition proceedings had lapsed under Se....
Land acquisition proceeding will not lapse where possession of land could not be taken by authority due to pending litigation/stay.
For lapsing of acquisition under Section 24(2) of the Act, both possession not taken and compensation not tendered are required to be satisfied.
Lapse of land acquisition proceeding – In case a person has been tendered compensation as provided under Section 31(1) of 1894 Act, it is not open to him to claim that acquisition has lapsed under Se....
For a deemed lapse of acquisition under Section 24(2) of the Act 2013, both conditions regarding possession and compensation must be unsatisfied as per Indore Development Authority vs. Manoharlal.
Possession of land taken or compensation paid prevents a lapse under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013.
Possession not being taken due to a court stay does not entitle the landowner to claim benefit under Section 24(2) of Act 2013.
The application of Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013 does not revive stale claims or reopen concluded proceedings but applies to pending proceedings as on its enforcement date.
Lapse of land acquisition proceeding – In case a person has been tendered compensation as provided under Section 31(1) of 1894 Act, it is not open to him to claim that acquisition has lapsed under Se....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.