Delhi Development Authority vs Krishna Rajauria @ Krishna Saini & Ors
- SCC(2018) 11 SCC 618
- Neutral2017 INSC 387
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
Where the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 applies, and no stay order operates against the land acquisition authority's taking of possession or payment of compensation, the authority is bound by the statutory time requirement under Section 24(2) of the Act; failure to comply with this requirement within the prescribed time is a breach that cannot be excused, and the authority cannot challenge such non-compliance by appeal.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Appellant (s)
VERSUS
KRISHNA RAJAURIA @ KRISHNA SAINI & ORS. Respondent(s)
WITH
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5545 OF 2017 [@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO. 32633 OF 2015 ]
J U D G M E N T
KURIAN, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. It is the case of the appellant that the possession could not be taken or compensation could not be paid to the respondents because of operation of stay.
3. The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 came into operation on 01.01.2014.
4. The learned counsel for the respondents, on instruction, submits that there was no stay operating in the case of the party-respondents. The stay was in the case of Ruchi Vihar Housing Welfare Society Vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi and others. The party-respondents herein are neither parties to the writ petition nor members of the Society. The submission that there was no stay in the case of the lands of the party-respondents is recorded.
5. In that view of the matter, nothing prevented the appellant from taking possession or paying compensation within the time contemplated under Section 24(2) of the Act.
6. Having admittedly not complied with the above statutory requirement, we do not find any merit in these appeals, which are, accordingly, dismissed.
.......................J. [ KURIAN JOSEPH ]
.......................J. [ R. BANUMATHI ]
New Delhi;
April 24, 2017.
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