2016 ALL SCR 1633
SUPREME COURT

KURIAN JOSEPH AND ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN, JJ.

Delhi Development Authority Vs. Raman Grover & Ors.

Civil Appeal No.4995 of 2016

10th May, 2016.

Petitioner Counsel: Mr. AMRENDRA SHARAN, Sr. Adv., Mr. VISHNU B. SAHARYA, Mr. VIRESH B. SAHARYA, for M/s SAHARYA & CO., Ms. GARIMA PRASAD, Ms. RACHANA SRIVASTAVA, Ms. MONIKA, Mr. SUKRIT KAPOOR
Respondent Counsel: Mr. A.K. SANGHI, Sr. Adv., Mr. AJAY KUMAR SINGH, Mr. R.K. RATHORE, Mr. R.S. NAGAR, Mr. HARISH KHINCHI, Mr. R.R. RAJESH, Mr. D.S. MAHRA, Ms. SUSHMA SURI, Mr. AJAY BANSAL, AAG, Haryana, Mr. GAURAV YADAVA, Mr. SANJAY KUMAR VISEN, Ms. ROHINI MUSA, Mr. ZAFFAR INAYATI, Mr. ASHWANI KUMAR, Mr. RAHUL BHATIA, Mr. ASHOK MAHAMANA, Mr. SUMIT BANSAL, Mr. ATEEV MATHUR, Ms. RICHA OBEROI, Mr. A. P. S. SEHGAL, Mr. GAGAN GUPTA, Mr. VIKAS KUMAR, Mr. GOVIND GOEL, Mr. ANKIT GOEL, Mr. NILKAMAL DATTA, Dr. KAILASH CHAND

Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act (2013), S.24(2) - Lapse of acquisition - Appeal against - Award passed far back in 1986 - Possession however not taken - S.24(2) squarely applies - Appeal dismissed. (Para 3)

JUDGMENT

KURIAN JOSEPH, J. :- 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.

4. In that view of the matter, the appeal is dismissed.

No costs.

Appeal dismissed.