The High Court granted a declaration that land acquisition proceedings deemed to have lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act as compensation was not tendered for possession taken prior to the Act's commencement.
Writ petition allowed; declaration granted that acquisition proceedings are deemed to have lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act.
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.
$~70
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Through: Mr Bhagwat Pershad Gupta and Mr Priyanshu Aggarwal, Advs
UNION OF INDIA AND ANR ..... Respondents Through: Mr Yeeshu Jain, SC with Ms Jyoti Tyagi, Adv for L&B/LAC
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SISTANI HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL
G.S.SISTANI, J. (ORAL)
W.P. (C) No.252/2017
Page 1 of 3
“That the writ petition is liable to be dismissed as not only the actual vacant physical possession of the subject land falling in khasra number 521/1 min (0-14) was duly taken on 27.12.1990 on the spot by preparing possession proceeding on the spot and handed over to DDA which is being admitted by the petitioner as page 12 of the writ petition. The petitioner has not explained as to why it kept silent from the year 1990 till 2017if the compensation was not actually paid to him or his father nor any application has been placed on record to suggest that the petitioner was aggrieved of nonpayment of compensation. It is submitted that the petitioner is apparently trying to take advantage of ill kept revenue records and initiated present writ petition on basis of RTI
W.P. (C) No.252/2017
Page 2 of 3
filed in the year 2015. As the case may be, as per NM and Statement-A does not bear any entry regarding the payment of compensation .”
G.S.SISTANI, J
SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL, J
JULY 16, 2018 SU
W.P. (C) No.252/2017
Page 3 of 3
3 issues framed by the court
Whether acquisition proceedings lapse under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act when compensation has not been tendered and possession was taken before the commencement of the Act.
Whether the petitioner's delay in filing the petition entitles the State to be heard despite lack of evidence on payment.
Whether the absence of a payment entry in the Naksha Muntazamin and Statement A proves non-payment of compensation.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Lalit Kapur
Union of India and Anr
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
