D.D.A Vs. RAMAN GROVER AND ORS.
EmailAppeal: CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4995 OF 2016
Petitioner: D.D.A
Respondent: RAMAN GROVER AND ORS.
Judges: KURIAN JOSEPH , ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN
Date of Judgment: May 10, 2016
JUDGEMENT:
NON- CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4995 OF 2016 [@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO. 6250 OF 2015]
D.D.A. Appellant(s)
VERSUS
RAMAN GROVER AND ORS. Respondent(s)
J U D G M E N T
KURIAN, J. 1. Leave granted. 2. The appellant is before this Court, aggrieved by the Judgment of the High Court, whereby the High Court gave a 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. 3. Sh. Amrendra Sharan, learned senior counsel appearing for Delhi Development Authority (DDA), on instruction, faily concedes that as far as 1100 sq. yards of land belonging to Respondent No. 1 is concerned, the possession has not been taken by DDA, though the award had been passed as far back as in 1986. In that view of the matter, Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act squarely applies in the case and the land acquisition proceedings in respect of the said extent of 1100 sq. yards belonging to Respondent No. 1 shall be deemed to have lapsed. 5. In that view of the matter, the appeal is dismissed. No costs. …………………..J. [ KURIAN JOSEPH ]
…………………..J. [ ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN ]
New Delhi; May 10, 2016.
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4995 OF 2016 [@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO. 6250 OF 2015]
D.D.A. Appellant(s)
VERSUS
RAMAN GROVER AND ORS. Respondent(s)
J U D G M E N T
KURIAN, J. 1. Leave granted. 2. The appellant is before this Court, aggrieved by the Judgment of the High Court, whereby the High Court gave a 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. 3. Sh. Amrendra Sharan, learned senior counsel appearing for Delhi Development Authority (DDA), on instruction, faily concedes that as far as 1100 sq. yards of land belonging to Respondent No. 1 is concerned, the possession has not been taken by DDA, though the award had been passed as far back as in 1986. In that view of the matter, Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act squarely applies in the case and the land acquisition proceedings in respect of the said extent of 1100 sq. yards belonging to Respondent No. 1 shall be deemed to have lapsed. 5. In that view of the matter, the appeal is dismissed. No costs. …………………..J. [ KURIAN JOSEPH ]
…………………..J. [ ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN ]
New Delhi; May 10, 2016.
