SURENDRA KUMAR GUPTA AND ORS Vs. STATE OF U P AND ANR

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

5395 of 2016, Judgment Date: Jun 29, 2016

                                                              NON-REPORTABLE

                        IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
                        CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                        CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5395 OF 2016
             [ @ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO. 24110 OF 2014 ]

      SURENDRA KUMAR GUPTA AND ORS                   Appellant(s)

                                   VERSUS

      STATE OF U P AND ANR                          Respondent(s)

                               J U D G M E N T

KURIAN, J.
1.    Leave granted.

2.    The appellants are aggrieved by the impugned Judgment and order  dated
05.08.2014 passed by the High Court of Allahabad in Writ  Petition  (C)  No.
39957 of 2014.

3.    In the nature of the order we propose to pass, it is not necessary  to
go into the factual matrix.

4.    The appellants took up the contention that by virtue of the  operation
of Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in  Land
Acquisition, Rehabilitation and  Resettlement  Act,  2013  (in  short,  "the
Act"), the whole acquistion proceedings initiated by  the  first  respondent
in respect  of  the  appellants'  property  have  lapsed.   The  High  Court
declined to go into this aspect, stating that it is a belated contention.

5.    In the facts of this case, we are of the view that the High Court  was
not justified in declining to consider this  aspect.   After  all,  the  Act
itself  was  introduced  only  on  01.01.2014.  Obviously,  the   contention
regarding operation of Section  24(2)  of  the  Act  can  be  advanced  only
thereafter.

6.    In the above circumstances, we set aside  the  impugned  Judgment  and
remit the matter to the High Court to consider  as  to  whether  acquisition
proceedings have lapsed by virtue of operation of Section 24(2) of the  Act.

7.    Needless to say that it will be open  to  the  parties  to  raise  all
available contentions on the factual aspect of  lapse  and  file  additional
documents.

8.    The interim order passed by this Court shall continue  till  the  writ
petition is disposed of afresh by the High Court.

9.     We  request  the  High  Court  to  dispose  of  the   writ   petition
expeditiously and preferably before the end of this year.

10.   In view of the  above  observations  and  directions,  the  appeal  is
disposed of.
      No costs.
                                                   .......................J.
                                                        [ KURIAN JOSEPH ]

                                                   .......................J.
                                                [ ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN ]

      New Delhi;
      June 29, 2016.