The High Court dismissed a writ petition seeking a declaration that land acquisition awards had lapsed under the 2013 Act, holding that the petitioner's thirty-year delay without reasonable explanation disentitled him to discretionary relief.
Writ petition dismissed on the ground of laches; interim order vacated; applications dismissed.
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.
$~14
CORAM: JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA
O R D E R % 10.12.2018
“............the acquisition proceedings initiated under the W.P.(C) 4934/2015 Page 1 of 3
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 in respect of which award bearing No.2181-D/82-83/supplementary dated 20.09.1982 and 17.11.1986 were made, in respect of the land comprised in Khasra No.585/529(3-2) admeasuring three bighas and two biswas and Khasra No.612/532(215) admeasuring two bighas and fifteen biswas, in village Kasoompur, tehsil, Mehrauli, District South-West, New Delhi, has lapsed, as provided by Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013”.
stands vacated. The applications are dismissed.
S. MURALIDHAR, J.
SANJEEV NARULA, J.
DECEMBER 10, 2018/ ‘dc’
W.P.(C) 4934/2015 Page 3 of 3
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a writ petition seeking declaration of lapsed land acquisition award after thirty years is maintainable despite the invocation of Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act.
Whether the petitioner explains the inordinate delay in approaching the court.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Vijay Singh Rathi
Union of India
S. Muralidhar
Sanjeev Narula
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
