MyNation KnowledgeBase

Landmark Judgments and Articles on Law

Register to Download

Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement


Judgment delivered on: 13.04.2015

WP(C) No. 8350/2014 CM 19345/2014

M/S CLEAR WATER ANR. …. Petitioners


UNION OF INDIA ORS. ….. Respondents

Advocates who seemed in this case:

For a Petitioners : Mr Sumeer Sodhi with Mr Arjun Nanda, Mr Mohit Malhotra.
For a Respondent No.1 : Mr Abhay Prakash Sahay.
For a Respondent DDA :Mr Pawan Mathur with Mr Himanshu Gupta.
For a Respondent Nos. 34 : Mr Yeeshu Jain with Ms Jyoti Tyagi.




1. The opposite confirmation on interest of respondent nos. 3 4 is handed over by Mr Yeeshu Jain. The same is taken on record. The schooled warn for a petitioners does not wish to record any retort confirmation inasmuch as he would be relying on a averments already contained in a command petition.

2. The petitioners find a advantage of Section 24(2) of a Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as „the 2013 Act?) that came into outcome on 01.01.2014. A stipulation is sought to a outcome that a merger move instituted underneath a Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as „the 1894 Act?) in honour of that Award No. 14/87-88 antiquated 26.05.1987 was made, inter alia, in honour of a petitioners? land comprised in Khasra Nos. 777/2 (3-10), 781/1-2/2 (4-03) measuring 7 bighas and 13 biswas in all in encampment Satbari shall be deemed to have lapsed.

3. The mount of a respondents is that earthy possession of a pronounced land was taken on 14.07.1987. This is doubtful by a petitioners, who explain to be in tangible earthy possession of a theme land.

See also  Quashing FIR under Section 482 CrPc

4. In so distant as a doubt of remuneration is concerned, a same has not been paid to a petitioners though according to a respondents, a same has been deposited in a treasury. Therefore, they find to plead a second Proviso to Section 24(2) of a 2013 Act, that was introduced by trait of a Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement (Amendment) Ordinance, 2015 (hereinafter referred to as “the pronounced Ordinance”).

5. So distant as a qualification of a second Proviso to Section 24(2) of a 2013 Act is concerned, a same can't be relied on by a respondents inasmuch as a identical sustenance introduced by a preceding bidding of 2014 has been hold to be impending in inlet and does not take divided vested rights. This has so been hold by a Supreme Court in M/s Radiance Fincap (P) Ltd. Ors. Vs. Union of India Ors. motionless on 12.01.2015 in Civil Appeal No. 4283/2011 wherein a Supreme Court hold as under:-

“The right conferred to a land holders/owners of a acquired land underneath Section 24(2) of a Act is a orthodox right and, therefore, a pronounced right can't be taken divided by an Ordinance by inserting portion to a abovesaid sub-section though giving retrospective outcome to a same.”

6. The same has been reinforced by a Supreme Court in Karnail Kaur Ors. Vs. State of Punjab Ors. Civil Appeal No. 7424/2013 motionless on 22.01.2015.

7. From a above decisions, it is transparent that a pronounced Ordinance is impending in inlet and a rights combined in foster of a petitioners as on 01.01.2014 by trait of a 2013 Act are composed by a second Proviso to Section 24(2) of a 2013 Act, that has been introduced by a pronounced Ordinance.

See also  SC : Voice recordings in a CD is admissible as evidene

8. Without going into a debate with courtesy to a earthy possession, this most is transparent that a Award was done some-more than 5 years before to a derivation of a 2013 Act and a remuneration has also not been paid to a petitioners, though has usually been deposited in a treasury, that does not volume to remuneration of remuneration as interpreted by a Supreme Court in Pune Municipal Corporation and Anr v. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki and Ors: (2014) 3 SCC 183.

9. All a required mixture for a focus of Section 24(2) of a 2013 Act as interpreted by a Supreme Court and this Court in a following cases mount satisfied:-

(1) Union of India and Ors v. Shiv Raj and Ors: (2014) 6 SCC 564;
(2) Sree Balaji Nagar Residential Association v. State of Tamil Nadu and Ors: Civil Appeal No. 8700/2013 motionless on 10.09.2014;
(3) Surender Singh v. Union of India Others: WP(C) 2294/2014 motionless on 12.09.2014 by this Court; and
(4) Girish Chhabra v. Lt. Governor of Delhi and Ors: WP(C) 2759/2014 motionless on 12.09.2014 by this Court.

10. As a result, a petitioners are entitled to a stipulation that a pronounced merger record instituted underneath a 1894 Act in honour of a theme land are deemed to have lapsed. It is so declared.

11. The command petition is authorised to a aforesaid extent. There shall be no sequence as to costs.

APRIL 13, 2015.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

CopyRight @ MyNation

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, though No Lawyer will give we Advice like We do

Please review Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You determine afterwards Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We hoop Women Centric inequitable laws like False Section 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

See also  Framing of charges requires a Prima facie case against the accused; Evaluation of Materials to assess conviction not required
MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation