Delhi Development Authority vs Poonam Bhatia & Ors
- SCC(2018) 14 SCC 243
- Neutral2016 INSC 365
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
Where a land acquiring authority fails to dispute before the High Court that it has neither taken physical possession of the land nor paid compensation, and the award was made more than five years prior to the commencement of the 2013 Act, there is no justification for the authority to appeal to the Supreme Court on the question of whether the acquisition has lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
2. The Delhi Development Authority has come up in appeal, aggrieved by the Judgment dated 11.11.2014 passed by the High Court of Delhi, whereby the acquisition of the property referred to in the Judgment in question of the land belonging to the respondents has been declared to have lapsed in view of the provisions of Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.
3. On the finding that the possession has not been taken, the relevant portion of the impugned judgment is extracted below:
“It is an admitted position that neither physical possession of the subject land has been taken by the land acquiring agency, nor has any compensation been paid to the petitioners. The award was made more than five years prior to the commencement of the 2013 Act. All the ingredients of section 24(2) of the 2013 Act as interpreted by the Supreme Court and this Court in the following decisions satisfied.....”
4. In the above circumstances, the appellant having not disputed the question of possession, before the High Court, there is no justification in filing the appeal before this Court.
5. The appeal is hence dismissed. No costs.
................J. [KURIAN JOSEPH]
....................J. [ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN] NEW DELHI;
MAY 03, 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