LCI Learning

Share on Facebook

Share on Twitter

Share on LinkedIn

Share on Email

Share More

According to Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013, the acquisition of the disputed land is not deemed to have expired.

sahithi reddy ,
  25 February 2023       Share Bookmark

Court :
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Brief :

Citation :
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 352 OF 2023

CAUSE TITLE:

Govt. of NCT of Delhi  Versus Sushil Kumar Gupta & Ors.

DATE OF ORDER:  

10-02-2023

JUDGE(S):

M.R.Shah, C.T.Ravikumar

PARTIES:

Petitioner:Govt. of NCT of Delhi 

Respondent:Sushil Kumar Gupta & Ors.

BRIEF FACTS 

Feeling deceived and unsatisfied by the contested judgment and order dated May 30, 2016, issued by the High Court of Delhi in New Delhi in Writ Petition (C) No. 1399 of 2014, by which the High Court granted the aforementioned writ petition and declared that the land acquisition proceedings in respect of the in question are deemed to have expired under Section 24(2) of The Government of NCT of Delhi has chosen to pursue this appeal under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation, and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as "Act, 2013").

Issue raised 

If Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation, and Resettlement Act, 2013 considers land acquisition proceedings with relation to the subject property to have expired?

Observation of court 

The Constitution Bench of this Court has rejected the High Court's reliance on the Pune Municipal Corporation decision (already discussed) in the case of the Indore Development Authority (supra).

Thus, by the law established by this Court, to lapse the acquisition under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013, both of the conditions, namely refusing to take possession and refusing to pay compensation, must be met; if only one of the conditions is met, the acquisition will not lapse.

As a result, once the land in question was transferred into the owner's possession on March 12, 1981, the law established by this Court in the case of Indore Development Authority (supra) was applied, and the acquisition of the land in question is not considered to have expired under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013. The High Court's contested decision and order are untenable in light of the facts.

The present appeal is successful in light of the foregoing and for the reasons mentioned above. The High Court's contested decision and order are hereby reversed and quashed. As a result, the High Court dismisses the writ petition that was preferred by the initial writ petition.

Click here to download the original copy of the judgement


 

 
"Loved reading this piece by sahithi reddy?
Join LAWyersClubIndia's network for daily News Updates, Judgment Summaries, Articles, Forum Threads, Online Law Courses, and MUCH MORE!!"



Published in Others
Views : 946




Comments