Miss Lucy
← All judgments

Delhi Development Authority vs Hari Prakash And Ors

Supreme Court26 September 2016Rohinton Fali Nariman · Kurian Joseph

Ratio decidendi

The rule this decision rests on

Where an award under land acquisition proceedings has been made but possession has not been taken and compensation has not been paid within the time prescribed under Section 24(2) of The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, the land acquisition proceedings lapse, and the acquiring authority's remedy is to initiate fresh acquisition proceedings under the 2013 Act rather than to enforce the expired award.

Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.

Judgment

As delivered

NON-REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIACIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 9719 OF 2016(@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) No 28376 Of 2016)(Arising out of CC No. 14007 of 2016)
DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY APPELLANT
VERSUS
HARI PRAKASH AND ORS. RESPONDENTS
J U D G M E N T
KURIAN, J.
1. Leave granted.

2. The appellant is before this Court aggrieved by the declaration that the entire land acquisition proceedings have lapsed in view of the operation of Section 24 (2) of The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as “2013 Act”).

3. The learned counsel appearing for Delhi Development Authority (DDA), on instruction, fairly concedes that as far as the land measuring 01 bighas 09 biswas belonging to Respondent No. 1 is concerned, the possession has not been taken by the DDA and compensation has not been paid, though the award had been passed as far back as in 2004. In that view of the matter, we see no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment of the High Court.

4. However, the declaration as above and the consequent dismissal of this appeal is without prejudice to the liberty available to the appellant to initiate proceedings afresh for the acquisition of the subject land under the provisions of the 2013 Act.

5. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, the appellant is given a period of one year to exercise its liberty granted under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act for initiation of the acquisition proceedings afresh.

5. In that view of the matter, the appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

......................J. [KURIAN JOSEPH ]

.......................J. [ ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN ]

NEW DELHI SEPTEMBER 26, 2016.

This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.

Research this judgment with Miss Lucy

Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.

Try Miss Lucy free