DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Vs. KRISHNA RAJAURIA @ KRISHNA SAINI & ORS

Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013

Tags Land Acquisition

Supreme Court of India (Division Bench (DB)- Two Judge)

Appeal (Civil), 5546 of 2017, Judgment Date: Apr 24, 2017

                                                              NON-REPORTABLE

                        IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
                        CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                        CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5546 OF 2017
              [@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO. 32631 OF 2015 ]

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.

Back to Judgments