MAHAVIR Vs. UNION OF INDIA
LAWS(SC)-2017-9-79
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Decided on September 08,2017

MAHAVIR Appellant
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA Respondents





Cited Judgements :-

JEEJABABY VS. THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU AND ANOTHERS [LAWS(MAD)-2018-1-983] [REFERRED TO]
DEVENDER SINGH & ORS VS. HONORABLE LT GOVERNOR & ORS [LAWS(DLH)-2018-12-80] [REFERRED TO]
JAGJIT GREWAL VS. UNION OF INDIA & ORS [LAWS(DLH)-2018-12-218] [REFERRED TO]
RAM DEVI AND ORSANR VS. GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI [LAWS(DLH)-2018-12-297] [REFERRED TO]
ARTI KAPAHI VS. UNION OF INDIA & ORS [LAWS(DLH)-2019-1-115] [REFERRED TO]
MOOL CHAND VS. UNION OF INDIA & ORS [LAWS(DLH)-2019-1-183] [REFERRED TO]
SATISH KUMAR MODI VS. LAND ACQUISITION COLLECTOR [LAWS(DLH)-2019-1-39] [REFERRED TO]
PRATAP SINGH & ORS VS. GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS [LAWS(DLH)-2019-1-55] [REFERRED TO]
GURMEET SINGH GREWAL & ORS VS. UNION OF INDIA & ORS [LAWS(DLH)-2019-1-57] [REFERRED TO]
KRISHNA DEVI & ORS VS. UNION OF INDIA & ORS [LAWS(DLH)-2019-1-350] [REFERRED TO]
SANDHYA EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY (REGD ) VS. GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS [LAWS(DLH)-2019-1-390] [REFERRED TO]
DESH RAJ ARYA & ORS VS. GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS [LAWS(DLH)-2019-2-45] [REFERRED TO]
RAJ SINGH & ANR VS. UNION OF INDIA & ORS [LAWS(DLH)-2019-3-168] [REFERRED TO]
SUNIL KUMAR SINGH VS. STATE OF U P AND ANOTHER [LAWS(ALL)-2019-5-118] [REFERRED TO]
MAHENDER KUMAR VS. LT GOVERNOR OF DELHI [LAWS(DLH)-2019-7-224] [REFERRED TO]
SUSHMA LODHI & ORS VS. UNION OF INDIA & ORS [LAWS(DLH)-2019-9-147] [REFERRED TO]
LAXMAN SINGH VS. LAND ACQUISITION COLLECTOR/A D M & ORS [LAWS(DLH)-2019-9-164] [REFERRED TO]
AJIT SINGH YADAV VS. GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI [LAWS(DLH)-2019-9-184] [REFERRED TO]
SHARMILA SETH VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(DLH)-2019-9-215] [REFERRED TO]
SANTUR CONSTRUCTION & FINANCE (P) LTD. VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(DLH)-2019-10-204] [REFERRED TO]
DHOOP CHAWN CONSTRUCTION &FINANCE (P) LTD VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(DLH)-2019-10-205] [REFERRED TO]
SAMMAN CONSTRUCTION & FINANCE (P) LTD. VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(DLH)-2019-10-206] [REFERRED TO]
TAROUNI CONSTRUCTION&FINANCE (P) LTD VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(DLH)-2019-10-207] [REFERRED TO]
JAGJEET SINGH VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(DLH)-2019-12-156] [REFERRED TO]
REX (U. & A.) REMEDIES PVT LTD VS. GOVT OF STATE OF NCT OF DELHI [LAWS(DLH)-2020-1-127] [REFERRED TO]
NAUNIHAL SINGH KAKKAR VS. LAND & BUILDING DEPARTMENT [LAWS(DLH)-2020-2-39] [REFERRED TO]
INDORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY VS. MANOHARLAL ETC. [LAWS(SC)-2020-3-83] [REFERRED TO]
HARGYAN SINGH VS. GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI [LAWS(DLH)-2019-3-341] [REFERRED TO]
ARUN KUMAR VS. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, HPPWD, DHARAMPUR [LAWS(HPH)-2019-10-210] [REFERRED TO]
RANBIR SINGH VS. STATE OF JHARKHAND [LAWS(JHAR)-2019-11-187] [REFERRED TO]
VANDANA GOEL VS. LT. GOVERNOR OF DELHI [LAWS(DLH)-2019-8-313] [REFERRED TO]
NARESH SEHRAWAT VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(DLH)-2019-9-304] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

- (1.)Delay condoned.
(2.)There is a gross abuse of the process of law reflected in the instant case. In Raisena, Lutyen's zone of New Delhi the acquisition took place and awards were passed thereto in 1911-1912. A writ petition was filed by the petitioners before the High Court after 105 years later, urging that compensation has not been paid; due to operation of the provisions of Sec. 24 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Settlement Act, 2013 (for short, "the 2013 Act"), the land acquisition has lapsed.
(3.)In the writ petition filed by the petitioners in the High Court they claimed to be the fourth Generation of Nathu son of Kaalu. It was averred that Government passed the award Nos.55 and 56 in the year 1911-1912. The predecessors in interest of the petitioners were cultivators in the capacity of Gair Morusi tenants. As per the prevalent policy, at the relevant time, cultivators and tenants were entitled to 50 per cent of the compensation. About 100 acres of the land of the predecessors had been acquired in the village Raisina. A declaration under Sec. 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, "the Act") was issued. Nathu and Kaalu were held entitled to compensation in the award Nos.55 and 56 which was passed. In the awards P-2 and P-3, which have been placed on record, the year 1911 and 1912 had been mentioned, not the actual date on which said awards had been passed.
;


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