GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI Vs. JAGJIT SINGH
LAWS(SC)-2015-2-97
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: DELHI)
Decided on February 27,2015

GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI Appellant
VERSUS
JAGJIT SINGH Respondents





Cited Judgements :-

DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY VS. SUKHBIR SINGH & OTHERS [LAWS(SC)-2016-9-11] [REFERRED TO]
BIMLENDRA MOHAN PRATAP MISHRA AND ANOTHER VS. STATE OF U.P. THROU. ITS PRIN. SECY. URBAN PLANNING & DEVP. & ORS. [LAWS(ALL)-2017-2-34] [REFERRED TO]
RAMANDEEP & ORS VS. UOI & ORS [LAWS(DLH)-2016-8-330] [REFERRED]
AJIT SINGH VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(ALL)-2017-7-71] [REFERRED TO]
GHASITU RAM VS. STATE OF HARYANA & ORS [LAWS(P&H)-2016-10-150] [REFERRED TO]
INDORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY VS. MANOHARLAL ETC. [LAWS(SC)-2020-3-83] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

- (1.)Any determination under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, must proceed sequentially. First, the factum of an Award under Section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, must be clearly established. The said Award must predate the commencement of the Act, i.e., 01.01.2014., by at least five years (or more), ie., the Award must have been passed on or before 01.01.2009. This having been established, if possession is found to not have been taken, or compensation not paid, then the proceedings shall be deemed to have lapsed. Thereafter, the appropriate Government, if it so chooses, may reinitiate acquisition proceedings in respect of the same land, but under the 2013 Act's regime.
(2.)Each and every deeming operation under Section 24(2) requires unambiguously and unvaryingly that a factual conclusion be drawn about the passing of the Award under Section 11, of the 1894 Act, on or before 01.01.2009; further, the absence of compensation having been paid or the absence of possession having been taken by the acquirer, either of these, must be a proven point of fact, as a threshold requirement attracting the lapse.
(3.)This Court has in a number of decisions including Pune Municipal Corporation vs. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki, 2014 3 SCC 183, Union of India vs. Shiv Raj, 2014 6 SCC 564 and Bimla Devi vs. State of Haryana, 2014 6 SCC 583, clarified the manner in which the new provision is to be interpreted viz., that the acquisition lapses.
;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.