Petitioner sought declaration that acquisition proceedings lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act due to delayed compensation and old award date. Court held proceedings lapsed but directed compensation payment under the 2013 Act.
Compensation to be paid to the petitioner in terms of the 2013 Act within six months.
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.
$~21
*** IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI**
NASEEM AHMED .... Petitioner
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS ..... Respondents
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner : Mr P.S. Bindra For the Respondent L&B/LAC : Mr Siddharth Panda For the Respondent DDA : Mr Arjun Pant
CORAM:-
HON’BLE MR JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED HON’BLE MR JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA
JUDGMENT
BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J (ORAL)
W.P.(C) No.2680/2015
Page 1 of 3
Delhi. Admittedly, physical possession of the subject land was taken on 21.04.2006. The said land has to be utilized for channelization of river Yamuna. Admittedly, compensation has not been paid to the petitioner.
W.P.(C) No.2680/2015
Page 2 of 3
approach adopted on behalf of the petitioner. It also enables the respondents to retain the land for the purpose for which it was sought to have been acquired without going through an entirely new acquisition process. Therefore, we direct that the compensation be paid to the petitioner in terms of the 2013 Act. The same be done within six months.
BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J
MAY 03, 2016
kb
W.P.(C) No.2680/2015
Page 3 of 3
2 issues framed by the court
Whether acquisition proceedings deemed to have lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act where possession was taken before the Act came into force.
What relief is available to the petitioner when compensation under the old Act remains unpaid despite possession taken under the Act.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Pune Municipal Corporation and Anr v. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki and OrsReferred¶19
(2014) 3 SCC 183 · Who else cites this
Union of India and Ors v. Shiv Raj and OrsReferred¶19
(2014) 6 SCC 564 · Who else cites this
Sree Balaji Nagar Residential Association v. State of Tamil Nadu and OrsReferred¶19
2015 (3) SCC 353 · Who else cites this
Surender Singh v. Union of India & OthersReferred¶19
WP(C) 2294/2014
Girish Chhabra v. Lt. Governor of Delhi and OrsReferred¶19
WP(C) 2759/2014
1 provisions across 1 enactments
NASEEM AHMED
UNION OF INDIA
BADAR DURREZ AHMED
SANJEEV SACHDEVA
As recorded by the court registry
A petition under Article 226 of the Constitution asking a High Court to issue a writ against the State or a public authority in a civil matter.
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
