M. R. SHAH, C. T. RAVIKUMAR
Government of NCT of Delhi – Appellant
Versus
Beads Properties Pvt. Ltd. – 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 dated 24.08.2015 in Writ Petition (C) No. 6963 of 2014 by which the High Court has allowed the said writ petition preferred by the respondent No. 1 herein – original writ petitioner and has declared that the acquisition with respect to the land in question is deemed to have lapsed by virtue of 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 Government of NCT of Delhi and Anr. have preferred the present appeal.
2. From the counter affidavit filed before the High Court, it was the specific case on behalf of the appellants / Land Acquisition collector that the recorded owners of the land in question are Parvati Jain, Lajja Ram and D. L. Parti and since the recorded / original owners never challenge the acquisition proceedings, the original writ petitioner had no right to challenge the same. Even from the averments in the writ petition and even according to the original writ petitioner, the original writ petitioner purch
A subsequent purchaser has no standing to challenge the acquisition or its lapsing.
A subsequent purchaser has no standing to challenge land acquisition proceedings or lapsing under Section 24(2) of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and ....
Subsequent purchasers have no standing to challenge land acquisition or its lapsing under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Rese....
A subsequent purchaser has no standing to challenge lapsing of acquisition proceedings under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition 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....
Subsequent purchasers lack standing to challenge land acquisitions under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013.
Lapse of land acquisition proceeding – If acquiring body/beneficiary was not able to take possession due to pending litigation in a proceeding initiated by land owner, thereafter land owner cannot be....
Lapse of land acquisition proceeding – Subsequent purchaser has no locus to claim lapse of acquisition proceedings.
Lapse of land acquisition proceeding – There cannot be any lapse of acquisition under Section 24(2) of Act, 2013 on the ground of possession could not be taken over by authority and/or compensation c....
A subsequent purchaser cannot challenge land acquisition if possession has been taken over before their purchase.
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.