Anand Prakash Vs. State and anr

Anand Prakash vs State and anr

Type Court Judgment Court Delhi Decided Oct 01, 2014

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1171208

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/1171208
Court: Delhi High Court
Judge: Badar Durrez Ahmed
Decided On: Oct 01, 2014
Subject: Land Acquisition

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Land Acquisition

Key legal issue: Land Acquisition

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Anand Prakash

Respondent

State and anr

Excerpt

.....also on the decisions of this court in surinder singh vs. union of india and ors.: w.p.(c) 2294/2014 decided 12.09.2014 and girish chhabra vs. lt. governor of delhi and ors.: w.p.(c) 2759/2011 decided on 12.09.2014. the admitted position is that the compensation has not been paid to the petitioner in respect of the land in question. while the petitioner is claiming that possession has not been taken over by the respondent, the same is disputed by the learned counsel for the respondent who states that the possession was taken over on 12.09.2007. the award was made on 06.08.2008 (award no.1/2007-2008). the award was, inter alia, in respect of 5 bighas 13 biswas of land of khasra nos.24/7/1 and 14/2.3. since the award was made more than five years prior to the commencement of the 2013 act and compensation has also not, admittedly, been paid to the petitioner, in view of the provisions of section 24(2) of the 2013 act as interpreted in the above-mentioned decisions, the acquisition in respect of the aforesaid land shall be deemed to have lapsed. we have not gone into the question of possession as it was not necessary for us to do so.4. the writ petition is allowed to the aforesaid extend. there shall be no order as to costs. the pending applications also stand disposed of. badar durrez ahmed, j siddharth mridul, j october01 2014/dn

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment delivered on:

01. 10.2014 W.P.(C) 3536/2014 & CM Nos.7225/2014, 15222/2014, 15223/2014 ANAND PRAKASH ..... Petitioner versus STATE AND ANR ..... Respondents Advocates who appeared in this case: For the Petitioner : Ms Rahul Gupta and Mr Shekhar Gupta, Advocates For the Respondents : Mr Yeeshu Jain, Advocate with Ms Jyoti Tyagi, Advocate CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SIDDHARTH MRIDUL JUDGMENT

BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J (ORAL) 1. The petitioner claims that the subject acquisition has lapsed because of the deeming provisions of Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the 2013 Act’).

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the following Supreme Court decisions: (1) Pune Municipal Corporation and Anr v. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki and Ors: (2014) 3 SCC183 (2) Union of India and Ors v. Shiv Raj and Ors: (2014) 6 SCC564 and a very recent decision of the Supreme Court in (3) Sree Balaji Nagar Residential Association v. State of Tamil Nadu and Ors: Civil Appeal No.8700/2013 decided on 10.09.2014 and also on the decisions of this Court in Surinder Singh vs. Union of India and Ors.: W.P.(C) 2294/2014 decided 12.09.2014 and Girish Chhabra vs. Lt. Governor of Delhi and Ors.: W.P.(C) 2759/2011 decided on 12.09.2014. The admitted position is that the compensation has not been paid to the petitioner in respect of the land in question. While the petitioner is claiming that possession has not been taken over by the respondent, the same is disputed by the learned counsel for the respondent who states that the possession was taken over on 12.09.2007. The Award was made on 06.08.2008 (Award No.1/2007-2008). The Award was, inter alia, in respect of 5 bighas 13 biswas of land of Khasra Nos.24/7/1 and 14/2.

3. Since the Award was made more than five years prior to the commencement of the 2013 Act and compensation has also not, admittedly, been paid to the petitioner, in view of the provisions of Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act as interpreted in the above-mentioned decisions, the acquisition in respect of the aforesaid land shall be deemed to have lapsed. We have not gone into the question of possession as it was not necessary for us to do so.

4. The writ petition is allowed to the aforesaid extend. There shall be no order as to costs. The pending applications also stand disposed of. BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J SIDDHARTH MRIDUL, J OCTOBER01 2014/dn

Same Court & Year Delhi · 2014 Same Parties Anand Prakash vs State and anr Same Subject Land Acquisition Same Judge Badar Durrez Ahmed