Miss Lucy
← All judgments

Delhi Development Authority vs Ishwar Singh .

Supreme Court2 May 2017Kurian Joseph · R. Banumathi

Ratio decidendi

The rule this decision rests on

Where land acquisition proceedings have lapsed because compensation has not been paid to the land owner, the acquisition authority may not be permitted to continue with those proceedings, but retains the liberty to initiate fresh acquisition proceedings under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, provided such fresh proceedings are initiated within a specified period; if fresh proceedings are not initiated within that period, the authority must return physical possession of the land to the original owner.

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

Judgment

As delivered

1

NON-REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6078 OF 2017 [@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO. 14419 OF 2017 ] [@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) .....CC 19842 OF 2016 ]

DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Appellant(s)

VERSUS

ISHWAR SINGH AND ORS. Respondent(s)

J U D G M E N T

KURIAN, J.

1. Delay condoned.

2. Leave granted.

3. Admittedly, the compensation has not been paid to

the land owner(s). Therefore, the High Court is

right in its conclusion that the proceedings have

lapsed. This appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.

4. However, in the peculiar facts and circumstances

of this case, the appellant is given a period of six

months to exercise its liberty granted under Section

24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and

Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and

Resettlement Act, 2013 for initiation of the

acquisition proceedings afresh.

5. We make it clear that in case no fresh Signature Not Verified

acquisition proceedings are initiated within the said Digitally signed by JAYANT KUMAR ARORA Date: 2017.05.05 12:15:15 IST Reason:

period of one year from today by issuing a

Notification under Section 11 of the Act, the 2

appellant, if in possession, shall return the

physical possession of the land to the original land

owner.

6. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.

No costs.

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

.......................J. [ R. BANUMATHI ]

New Delhi;

May 02, 2017.

3

ITEM NO.11 COURT NO.7 SECTION XIV

S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C)......CC No(s). 19842/2016

(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 15/03/2016 in WPC No. 9125/2015 passed by the High Court Of Delhi At New Delhi)

DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Petitioner(s)

VERSUS

ISHWAR SINGH AND ORS. Respondent(s)

I.A. 1/2016 (with c/delay in filing SLP)

Date : 02/05/2017 This application was called on for hearing today.

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KURIAN JOSEPH HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE R. BANUMATHI

For Petitioner(s) Ms. Garima Prashad, Adv.

For Respondent(s) Mr. Kamal Katyan, Adv.

Ms. Ruchi Kohli, Adv.

Mr. Avtar Singh Chouhan, Adv.

UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R

Delay condoned.

Leave granted.

The appeal is dismissed in terms of the signed non-reportable

Judgment.

Pending interlocutory applications, if any, stand disposed

of.

(Jayant Kumar Arora) (Renu Diwan) Court Master Assistant Registrar

(Signed non-reportable Judgment is placed on the file) 4

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