Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 – s.24(2) – High Court relying on its decision in Gyanender Singh & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. [W.P. (C) No. 1393/2014] and the decision of Supreme Court in Pune Municipal Corporation case, allowed the writ petition and declared that the acquisition w.r.t the land in question is deemed to have lapsed u/s.24(2) on the ground that neither the possession of the land in question was taken nor the compensation was tendered/paid – On appeal, held: Decision in Pune Municipal Corporation has been overruled by the Constitution Bench of Supreme Court in Indore Development Authority case – Also, the decision of the High Court in Gyanender Singh is contrary to the said case – As per the law laid down in Indore Development Authority, the period during which the stay was operating is to be excluded – Thus, in the present case, in view of the fact that even when the 2013 Act came into force the stay order continued to operate due to which possession of the land in question could not be taken, as also observed by the High Court, there shall be no deemed lapse u/s.24(2) – Impugned judgment set aside.
Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal and Ors. (2020) 8 SCC 129 : [2020] 3 SCR 1 – followed.
Pune Municipal Corporation and Anr. v. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki and Ors. (2014) 3 SCC 183 : [2014]
1 SCR 783 – referred to.
Gyanender Singh & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. Decision dtd. 23.09.2014 of High Court of Delhi in W.P. (C) No. 1393/2014 – referred to.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.