Petitioner sought compensation for acquired land with 35-year-old delay. Court dismissed petition as withdrawn with liberty to file fresh petition explaining delay, referencing Supreme Court holdings on lack of explanation for delay.
Petition dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to file fresh petition explaining delay.
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.
$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
38 + W.P.(C) 454/2017 KARAMVEER ..... Petitioner Through: Mr Lalit Kumar Rawal, Advocate. versus
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS. ..... Respondents Through: Mr Yeeshu Jain and Ms Jyoti Tyagi, Advocates for LAC/L&B. Ms Shobhana Takiar, Advocate for DDA.
CORAM: JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA
O R D E R % 06.02.2019
S. MURALIDHAR, J.
SANJEEV NARULA, J.
FEBRUARY 06, 2019 rd
1 issue framed by the court
Whether a Writ Petition seeking compensation under Section 24(2) of the Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 should be dismissed in view of inordinate delay?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Mahavir v. Union of IndiaReferred¶11
Mahavir v. Union of India (2018) 3 SCC 588 · Who else cites this
KARAMVEER
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI
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
