RAJIV CHOWDHRIE HUF Vs. UNION OF INDIA
LAWS(SC)-2014-12-25
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: DELHI)
Decided on
December 10,2014
Rajiv Chowdhrie Huf
Appellant
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA
Respondents
Referred Judgements :-
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX MYSORE TRAVANCORE COCHIN AND COORG BANGALORE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX BANGALORE VS. INDO MERCANTILE BANK LIMITED PANGAL VITTAL NAYAK AND CO LIMITED [REFERRED TO]PUNJAB PRODUCE AND TRADING GO LIMITED VS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX WEST BENGAL CALCUTTA [REFERRED TO]
SATENDRA PRASAD JAIN VS. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
SENJEEVANAGAR MEDICAL AND HEALTH EMPLOYEES COOPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY VS. MOHAMMAD ABDULWAHAB [REFERRED TO]
PUNE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION VS. HARAKCHAND MISIRIMAL SOLANKI [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA VS. SHIV RAJ [REFERRED TO]
BHARAT KUMAR VS. STATE OF HARYANA [REFERRED TO]
BIMLA DEVI VS. STATE OF HARYANA [REFERRED TO]
BALAJI NAGAR RESIDENTIAL ASSOCIATION VS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU [REFERRED TO]
Cited Judgements :-
ARCHANA AND ORS. VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS. [LAWS(BOM)-2015-4-112] [REFERRED TO]DHANANJAY S/O LAXMAN MULEY VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2015-4-131] [REFERRED TO]
HANUMANRAO MORBAJI GUDADHE AND ORS. VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS. [LAWS(BOM)-2015-5-117] [REFERRED TO]
V.P. SATHEEDEVI AND ORS. VS. STATE OF KERALA AND ORS. [LAWS(KER)-2015-10-100] [REFERRED TO]
CHANDRAWATI VS. STATE OF U.P. AND ORS. [LAWS(ALL)-2015-12-138] [REFERRED TO]
SATISH CHANDRA GUPTA VS. STATE OF U.P. AND ORS. [LAWS(ALL)-2016-1-128] [REFERRED TO]
R. RAJARAM AND ORS. VS. THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT AND ORS. [LAWS(MAD)-2016-2-93] [REFERRED TO]
THE TAMIL NADU HOUSING BOARD AND ORS. VS. IGATE GLOBAL SOLUTIONS LIMITED AND ORS. [LAWS(MAD)-2016-2-94] [REFERRED TO]
NANA VS. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS. [LAWS(BOM)-2016-1-149] [REFERRED TO]
SUKHVIR VS. STATE OF U.P. AND ORS. [LAWS(ALL)-2016-3-56] [REFERRED TO]
K.M. CHIKKATHAYAMMA AND ORS. VS. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ORS. [LAWS(KAR)-2016-3-75] [REFERRED TO]
KHATIJABEN JIVANBHAI SUMRA VS. STATE OF GUJARAT AND ORS. [LAWS(GJH)-2016-3-246] [REFERRED TO]
ABCI INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD. VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS. [LAWS(CAL)-2016-4-52] [REFERRED TO]
RADHA SOAMI SATSANG BEAS VS. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND OTHERS [LAWS(ALL)-2016-4-198] [REFERRED TO]
KARAN SINGH AND ORS. VS. STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS. [LAWS(SC)-2015-5-103] [REFERRED TO]
RATTAN SINGH VS. UNION OF INDIA AND ANR [LAWS(SC)-2015-12-17] [REFERRED TO]
SANTOSH KUMAR VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2016-7-66] [REFERRED TO]
SHIV GAUR AND OTHERS VS. STATE OF U P AND OTHERS [LAWS(ALL)-2016-5-460] [REFERRED]
KAMALCHAND VS. STATE OF M P AND OTHERS [LAWS(MPH)-2016-3-145] [REFERRED]
SHANTI ROY VS. STATE OF BIHAR [LAWS(PAT)-2017-4-68] [REFERRED TO]
DAYA LAL PATEL, S/O NARAYAN BHAI VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [LAWS(CHH)-2017-8-87] [REFERRED TO]
INDORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY VS. MANOHARLAL ETC. [LAWS(SC)-2020-3-83] [REFERRED TO]
JUDGEMENT
-
(1.)This I.A. No.4 of 2014 in Civil Appeal No. 8785 of 2013 is filed by the appellant seeking for issuing direction and pass an order for disposal of this appeal in terms of Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (in short 'the Act of 2013'). The appellant-land owner has come to this Court questioning the correctness of the judgment and order dated 26.03.2010 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Delhi in W.P.(C)No. 2161 of 2006, wherein, the High Court dismissed the said petition.
(2.)Brief facts of the case are stated hereunder:
The appellant Hindu Undivided Family (for short HUF) purchased land comprising of Khasra Nos. 569, 575, 581, 586, 591, 592 (New Khasra Nos. 27/9, 12, 19, 22, 36/2, 9) on 07.06.1984 in all measuring 27 bighas situated in the revenue estate of village Bamnauli, Tehsil Mehrauli (presently Tehsil Vasant Vihar, Kapashera), New Delhi. On application made by the appellant, the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) vide Sanction Letter No.972/B/HQ/84 dated 23/01/1985 sanctioned the plan for constructing a farm house on part of the said land. In January 1985, the appellant constructed a farm house on the aforesaid land, which was in accordance with the plan duly sanctioned. After the completion of the construction, the MCD issued a completion certificate dated 06.11.1985 to the appellant.
(3.)On 26.11.2004, the Government of National Capital Territory (NCT) issued the notification dated 04.11.2004 under Section 4 of the repealed Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short 'the L.A. Act') in respect of land area measuring 2100 bighas and 06 biswas in respect of village Bamnauli, Tehsil Mehrauli. The public purpose mentioned in the notification under Section 4 of the L.A. Act was for construction of Dwarka, Phase II, the land of the appellant was covered in the said notification. The appellant filed his objections under Section 5A of the L.A. Act before the Land Acquisition Collector (for short 'LAC'), South West Delhi opposing the proposed acquisition for public purpose.
(2.)Brief facts of the case are stated hereunder:
The appellant Hindu Undivided Family (for short HUF) purchased land comprising of Khasra Nos. 569, 575, 581, 586, 591, 592 (New Khasra Nos. 27/9, 12, 19, 22, 36/2, 9) on 07.06.1984 in all measuring 27 bighas situated in the revenue estate of village Bamnauli, Tehsil Mehrauli (presently Tehsil Vasant Vihar, Kapashera), New Delhi. On application made by the appellant, the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) vide Sanction Letter No.972/B/HQ/84 dated 23/01/1985 sanctioned the plan for constructing a farm house on part of the said land. In January 1985, the appellant constructed a farm house on the aforesaid land, which was in accordance with the plan duly sanctioned. After the completion of the construction, the MCD issued a completion certificate dated 06.11.1985 to the appellant.
(3.)On 26.11.2004, the Government of National Capital Territory (NCT) issued the notification dated 04.11.2004 under Section 4 of the repealed Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short 'the L.A. Act') in respect of land area measuring 2100 bighas and 06 biswas in respect of village Bamnauli, Tehsil Mehrauli. The public purpose mentioned in the notification under Section 4 of the L.A. Act was for construction of Dwarka, Phase II, the land of the appellant was covered in the said notification. The appellant filed his objections under Section 5A of the L.A. Act before the Land Acquisition Collector (for short 'LAC'), South West Delhi opposing the proposed acquisition for public purpose.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.