The Court granted a declaration under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act that acquisition proceedings under the 1894 Act for the petitioners' land deemed to have lapsed, as the award was made over five years prior and compensation was unpaid.
Declaration that acquisition proceedings under the 1894 Act for the subject land are deemed to have lapsed.
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.
$~41 *** IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI**
RAMESH SINGH & ORS. .... Petitioners
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ..... Respondents
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioners : Mr N.S. Vasisht with Ms Jyoti Kataria, Advocates. For the Respondents : Ms Abha Malhotra with Mr Kushal Sharma, Advocates for respondent No.1. Mr Arjun Pant, Advocate for respondent No.3. Mr Yeeshu Jain with Ms Jyoti Tyagi, Advocates for respondent Nos.4 & 5.
CORAM:-
HON’BLE MR JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED HON’BLE MR JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA
JUDGMENT
BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J (ORAL)
Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation
and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the 2013 Act’)
which came into effect on 01.01.2014. A declaration is sought to the effect that the acquisition proceeding initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the 1894 Act’) in respect of which Award No.80-E/70-71 dated 09.01.1981 was made, inter alia , in respect
Page 1 of 3
W.P.(C) No.939/2015
of the petitioners’ 1/8th share in the land comprised in Khasra Nos.1238 Min (13-10) and 1238 (0-5) measuring 13 bighas 15 biswas (to the extent of 1/8th share therein) in all in village Mehrauli shall be deemed to have lapsed.
Page 2 of 3
W.P.(C) No.939/2015
the 2013 Act as interpreted by the Supreme Court and this Court in the following cases stand satisfied:-
acquisition proceedings initiated under the 1894 Act in respect of the subject land are deemed to have lapsed. It is so declared.
no order as to costs.
BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J
JANUARY 11, 2016 st
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J
Page 3 of 3
W.P.(C) No.939/2015
3 issues framed by the court
Whether acquisition proceedings initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 lapse under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act when the award was made over five years prior and compensation remains unpaid.
Whether the petitioners are entitled to a declaration that the acquisition proceedings are deemed to have lapsed.
Whether the ingredients for the application of Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act as interpreted by the Supreme Court and this Court are satisfied in the present case.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Pune Municipal Corporation and Anr v. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki and OrsApplied¶25
(2014) 3 SCC 183 · Who else cites this
Union of India and Ors v. Shiv Raj and OrsApplied¶26
(2014) 6 SCC 564 · Who else cites this
Sree Balaji Nagar Residential Association v. State of Tamil Nadu and OrsApplied¶27
Civil Appeal No. 8700/2013 decided on 10.09.2014
Surender Singh v. Union of India & OthersApplied¶28
WP(C) 2294/2014 decided on 12.09.2014
Girish Chhabra v. Lt. Governor of Delhi and OrsApplied¶29
WP(C) 2759/2014 decided on 12.09.2014
2 provisions across 2 enactments
RAMESH SINGH & ORS.
UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
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
