Land and Building Department Government of Nct of Delhi Through Its Principal Se Vs. M/S Mass Estate (P) Ltd. and Anr. - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/109967
CourtSupreme Court of India
Decided OnApr-18-2017
JudgeKurian Joseph and R. Banumathi
AppellantLand and Building Department Government of Nct of Delhi Through Its Principal Se
RespondentM/S Mass Estate (P) Ltd. and Anr.
Excerpt:
non-reportable in the supreme court of india civil appellate jurisdiction civil appeal no.5423 of2017[ @ special leave petition (c) no.38356 of2016]. land and building department government of nct of delhi through its principal secretary and anr. appellant(s) versus m/s mass estate (p) ltd. and anr. respondent(s) judgment kurian, j.1. leave granted.2. it is the case of the appellants that possession could not be taken and compensation could not be paid because of interim order operating in the case of adjacent acquisitions.3. it is not in dispute that in the case of the respondents herein, there was no stay operating.4. therefore, nothing prevented the appellants from either taking possession or paying the compensation to the respondents.5. neither having been done within five years, as contemplated under section 24(2) of the right to fair compensation and transparency in land acquisition, rehabilitation and resettlement act, 2013, we find no merit in this appeal, which is, accordingly, dismissed. no costs. .......................j.[ kurian joseph ]. .......................j.[ r. banumathi ]. new delhi; april 18, 2017.
Judgment:

NON-REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.5423 OF2017[ @ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) No.38356 OF2016]. LAND AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI THROUGH ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY AND ANR. Appellant(s) VERSUS M/S MASS ESTATE (P) LTD. AND ANR. Respondent(s)

JUDGMENT

KURIAN, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. It is the case of the appellants that possession could not be taken and compensation could not be paid because of interim order operating in the case of adjacent acquisitions.

3. It is not in dispute that in the case of the respondents herein, there was no stay operating.

4. Therefore, nothing prevented the appellants from either taking possession or paying the compensation to the respondents.

5. Neither having been done within five years, as contemplated under Section 24(2) of The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, we find no merit in this appeal, which is, accordingly, dismissed. No costs. .......................J.

[ KURIAN JOSEPH ]. .......................J.

[ R. BANUMATHI ]. New Delhi; April 18, 2017.