This High Court judgment held that acquisition proceedings were deemed to have lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act because neither physical possession of the land nor compensation was paid, despite a prior award.
It was declared that acquisition proceedings regarding Kh. No. 1428 min in Village Malikpur Kohi 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.
$~33
PRADUMAN PATEL ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr.Vishal Maan, Advocate.
versus
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS. ..... Respondents Through: Mr.Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Mr.Sunil Kumar Jha and Mr.Kushal Raj Tater, Advocates for respondent / L&B/ LAC/ GNCTD. Mr.Dhanesh Relan, Standing Counsel with Ms.Komal Sorout and Ms.Mrinalini Sharma, Advocates for respondent/DDA.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SISTANI HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL
G.S.SISTANI, J. (ORAL)
W.P. (C) No.10283/2015
Page 1 of 4
Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as ‘2013 Act’), as neither physical possession has been taken nor compensation has been paid to the petitioner.
W.P. (C) No.10283/2015
Page 2 of 4
Reforms Act, 1954 were dropped against the petitioner. A copy of the order has been filed with the writ petition as annexure P-3.
“ 9 . That as regards possession, it is humbly submitted that the possession of the total acquired land comprised in Khasra No.1428 min (4-16) was not taken. So far as compensation is concerned the compensation amount has not been received in the bank account of LAC New Delhi District. Thus, the compensation amount could not be paid to the interested persons”.
W.P. (C) No.10283/2015
Page 3 of 4
the petitioner is entitled to a declaration that the acquisition proceedings in respect of the subject land are deemed to have lapsed. It is ordered accordingly. However, we make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the title of the land. The question of title of the subject land is left open to be decided in the appropriate court of jurisdiction.
G.S.SISTANI, J.
SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL, J
APRIL 12, 2018 ssc
W.P. (C) No.10283/2015
Page 4 of 4
3 issues framed by the court
Whether acquisition proceedings lapse under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act when neither possession nor compensation has been paid.
Whether an order vesting land with the Gram Sabha under Section 81 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954 precludes relief of lapse.
Whether the petitioner is entitled to a declaration that acquisition proceedings are deemed to have lapsed.
4 provisions across 3 enactments
Praduman Patel
Govt. of NCT of Delhi
G.S. Sistani
Sangita Dhingra Sehgal
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
