Petitioners challenged acquisition proceedings under Section 24(2) of the 2013 LDA Act. The court held proceedings lapsed but, acknowledging land use, directed payment of compensation under the 2013 Act within six months instead of land return.
Compensation to be paid to the petitioners 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.
$~23
*** IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI**
SANTOSH KUMAR & ORS. .... Petitioners
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ..... Respondents
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner : Mr Rishi Malhotra with Mr Rajat Roshan Sharma For the Respondent UOI : Ms Saroj Bidawat For the Respondent L&B/LAC : Mr Yeeshu Jain with Ms Jyoti Tyagi For the Respondent DDA :Mr Dhanesh Relan with Ms Isha Garg
CORAM:-
HON’BLE MR JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED HON’BLE MR JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR
JUDGMENT
BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J (ORAL)
W.P.(C) No.6763/2014
Page 1 of 3
06.02.1981. It is in respect of, inter alia, the petitioners’ land comprised in Khasra Nos. 77/2 (2-06), 78/1 (1-10), 79/2(1-08), 75/2 (4-14), 76 (111), 73/2(1-14), 74/3 (3-12), measuring 16 bighas 15 biswas in village Molar Band. Admittedly, physical possession of the subject land was taken on 02.03.1981. The said land is to be utilized for Badarpur Thermal Power Project. Admittedly, compensation has not been paid to the petitioners.
W.P.(C) No.6763/2014
Page 2 of 3
counsel for the petitioners submits that as physical possession of the land has been taken and the same is being utilized for the Badarpur Thermal Power Project, the petitioners are not claiming the return of the land and would be satisfied, if compensation is given to the petitioners under the 2013 Act. This is a fair and very reasonable approach adopted on behalf of the petitioners. 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 petitioners in terms of the 2013 Act. The same be done within six months.
BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J
ASHUTOSH KUMAR, J
NOVEMBER 09, 2016 kb
W.P.(C) No.6763/2014
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 necessitate return of land or payment of compensation.
Whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation under the 2013 Act in lieu of the impugned award.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Pune Municipal Corporation and Anr v. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki and OrsExplained¶19
(2014) 3 SCC 183 · Who else cites this
Union of India and Ors v. Shiv Raj and OrsExplained¶19
(2014) 6 SCC 564 · Who else cites this
Sree Balaji Nagar Residential Association v. State of Tamil Nadu and OrsExplained¶19
2015 (3) SCC 353 · Who else cites this
Surender Singh v. Union of India & OthersExplained¶19
WP(C) 2294/2014
Girish Chhabra v. Lt. Governor of Delhi and OrsExplained¶19
WP(C) 2759/2014
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Santosh Kumar
Union of India
Badar Durrez Ahmed
Ashutosh Kumar
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
