The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the lapse of land acquisition proceedings. The petitioner argued non-payment of compensation under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act. The court noted compensation was actually paid to original holders, thus rejecting the claim.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 39
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 15316 of 2016
Petitioner :- Sri Ram Mandir Maharishi Nagar Trust Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Pankaj Dubey Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Shivam Yadav
Hon'ble Dilip Gupta,J. Hon'ble Jayant Banerji,J.
The petitioner contends that the acquisition proceedings have lapsed under Section 24(2) of The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 as compensation has not been paid to the petitioner.
It, however, transpires after exchange of the affidavits that compensation in fact had been paid to the original tenure holders from whom the petitioner had purchased the land.
In such circumstances, the contention of the petitioner that the acquisition proceedings would lapse cannot be accepted.
The petition is, accordingly, dismissed.
Order Date :- 5.1.2018 A. V. Singh
(Dilip Gupta,J.)
(Jayant Banerji,J.)
Sri Ram Mandir Maharishi Nagar Trust
State Of U.P.
3 Others
Dilip Gupta
Jayant Banerji
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
