Miss Lucy
← All judgments

M/S.Ansal Properties & Infrast.Ltd. vs State Of Haryana .

Supreme Court3 August 2017R. Banumathi · Kurian Joseph

Ratio decidendi

The rule this decision rests on

Where compensation has not been paid to the owners and land acquisition proceedings initiated before the commencement of the 2013 Act have remained pending, such proceedings lapse and the State must initiate fresh acquisition proceedings under The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 within six months, failing which the State cannot claim any right over the acquired land.

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. 10017 OF 2017 [@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO. 20511 OF 2008 ]

M/S.ANSAL PROPERTIES & INFRAST.LTD. Appellant(s)

VERSUS

STATE OF HARYANA & ORS. Respondent(s)

J U D G M E N T

KURIAN, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. The issue pertains to the land acquisition

proceedings initiated by the respondent-State.

During the pendency of the proceedings before this

Court, in view of the introduction of The Right to

Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land

Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act,

2013 (in short, “2013 Act”), the question arose as to

whether the acquisition proceedings have lapsed or

not.

3. On the admitted position that the compensation

has not been paid to the owners, in view of the

settled position, this Court has to give a

declaration that the proceedings have lapsed. Signature Not Verified Ordered accordingly.

Digitally signed by JAYANT KUMAR ARORA Date: 2017.09.04 17:12:00 IST Reason:

4. Now that the entire acquired land has been used

by the State, the only option available to them is to

initiate fresh proceedings under the 2013 Act within 2

six months from today.

5. We make it clear that in case no steps are taken

for acquisition under the 2013 Act, the

respondent-State shall not lay any claim in respect

of the land in dispute.

6. With the above observations and directions, this

appeal is disposed of.

No costs.

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

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

New Delhi;

August 03, 2017.

3

ITEM NO.2 COURT NO.6 SECTION IV

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

Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 20511 of 2008

M/S.ANSAL PROPERTIES & INFRAST.LTD. Appellant(s)

VERSUS

STATE OF HARYANA & ORS. Respondent(s)

Date : 03-08-2017 This appeal was called on for hearing today.

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

For Appellant(s) Mr. Chinmayee Chandra, Adv.

Mr. Vikas Agarwal, Adv.

Mr. Vinay Arora, Adv.

Mr. Sanjay Jain, AOR

For Respondent(s) Mr. Tushar Mehta, ASG Mr. Anil Grover, Adv.

Mr. Ajay Bansal, Adv.

Mr. Sanjay Kumar Visen, AOR Mr. Gaurav Yadava, Adv.

Mr. Satish Kumar, Adv.

Mr. Ugra Shankar Prasad, AOR

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

Leave granted.

The appeal is disposed of 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)

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