Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 22 (7.68 seconds)
Documents citing Faizabad Ayodhya Development ... vs Dr. Rajesh Kumar Pandey on 20 May, 2022

T.Ashok Surana vs The Competent Authority on 13 February, 2025

5.4. In W.P. No. 12199 of 2010, an interim order of stay was granted by this Court, which remained in force until 15.02.2016. This restrained the competent authority from conducting an enquiry and passing the award during that period. Though an application was filed to vacate the interim order, it was not disposed of until the petition was withdrawn. Therefore, the petitioner cannot now claim the benefit of delay and seek compensation under Act 2013. Reliance is placed once again on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Faizabad–Ayodhya Development Authority v. Rajesh Kumar Pandey, (2022) 18 SCC 507.
Madras High Court Cites 51 - Cited by 0 - M Sundar - Full Document

T.Ashok Surana vs The Competent Authority on 13 February, 2025

5.4. In W.P. No. 12199 of 2010, an interim order of stay was granted by this Court, which remained in force until 15.02.2016. This restrained the competent authority from conducting an enquiry and passing the award during that period. Though an application was filed to vacate the interim order, it was not disposed of until the petition was withdrawn. Therefore, the petitioner cannot now claim the benefit of delay and seek compensation under Act 2013. Reliance is placed once again on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Faizabad–Ayodhya Development Authority v. Rajesh Kumar Pandey, (2022) 18 SCC 507.
Madras High Court Cites 51 - Cited by 0 - M Sundar - Full Document

M/S Maya Engineering Works vs State Of Haryana on 29 August, 2023

12. He further submits that since in verdicts made by this Court as well as the Hon'ble Apex Court respectively in M/s Balwant Singh Sher Singh Rice Mills Vs. State of Haryana 2007 (3) R.C.R. (Civil) 839; Ghansham Dass and Others Vs. State of Haryana and Others 1986 (1) PLR 513; Gian Chand and Others Vs. State of Haryana and Others 2010 (51) R.C.R. (Civil) 818; State of Haryana Vs. Eros City Developers Pvt. Ltd. and Others 2016 AIR (SC) 451; State of Haryana Vs. M/s Vinod Oil and General Mills and Another 2014 (15) SCC 410; Laxmi Educational Society, Manesar and Others Vs. State of Haryana and Others 2022 (4) RCR (Civil) 239 and Faizabad-Ayodhya Development Authority Vs. Dr. Rajesh Kumar Pandey 2022 (8) Scale 774, whereins, it becomes propounded that despite earlier re-callings of notification(s) for acquisition, yet the acquiring authority becoming not deprived to re-issue notification(s) for acquisition of the writ lands. Therefore, he submits that the re-drawings of the acquisition notification(s) and also the making(s) of an award in pursuance thereof, despite earlier thereto the apposite notification(s) becoming withdrawn, rather becomes infused with a virtue of vindication.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - S Thakur - Full Document

Nar Singh And Ors vs State Of Haryana And Ors on 7 August, 2024

However, the Apex Court further went on to hold that the acquiring authority cannot be burdened with the determination of compensation under the provisions of 2013 Act, while placing reliance upon the observations made by the Constitutional Bench in Indore Development Authority (supra), wherein it was held that the intention of the law was not to grant advantage to the relentless litigants. Resultantly, the following principles were laid down:-
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 20 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

M/S Aic Developers (India) Pvt. Ltd. vs Lt. Governor Nct Of Delhi & Anr on 24 December, 2024

43. Even assuming that the issuance of award was precluded on account of status quo order, the same cannot lead to a situation where compensation payable to the petitioner/ land owner is to be assessed on the basis of the LA Act, 2013 (which is the main prayer under the amended writ petition).It has been held clearly in Faizabad-Ayodhya Development Authority v. Dr. Rajesh Kumar Pandey, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 679, that if the award has not been made within the requisite time period on account of proceedings pending in a Court of Law and an interim order granted therein, the Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:ROHIT W.P.(C) 8214/2013 & connected matters Page 25 of 29 KUMAR PATEL Signing Date:24.12.2024 07:45:02 provisions of the LA Act, 2013 would not become applicable merely on account of the award having been not made prior to 01.01.2014. It has been categorically held therein as under :-
Delhi High Court Cites 41 - Cited by 0 - S Datta - Full Document

M/S Evinix Designs Concepts P Ltd. vs Lt. Governor Nct Of Delhi & Anr on 24 December, 2024

43. Even assuming that the issuance of award was precluded on account of status quo order, the same cannot lead to a situation where compensation payable to the petitioner/ land owner is to be assessed on the basis of the LA Act, 2013 (which is the main prayer under the amended writ petition).It has been held clearly in Faizabad-Ayodhya Development Authority v. Dr. Rajesh Kumar Pandey, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 679, that if the award has not been made within the requisite time period on account of proceedings pending in a Court of Law and an interim order granted therein, the Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:ROHIT W.P.(C) 8214/2013 & connected matters Page 25 of 29 KUMAR PATEL Signing Date:24.12.2024 07:45:02 provisions of the LA Act, 2013 would not become applicable merely on account of the award having been not made prior to 01.01.2014. It has been categorically held therein as under :-
Delhi High Court Cites 41 - Cited by 0 - S Datta - Full Document

M/S Amar Dyeing Works vs Lt. Governor Nct Of Delhi & Anr on 24 December, 2024

43. Even assuming that the issuance of award was precluded on account of status quo order, the same cannot lead to a situation where compensation payable to the petitioner/ land owner is to be assessed on the basis of the LA Act, 2013 (which is the main prayer under the amended writ petition).It has been held clearly in Faizabad-Ayodhya Development Authority v. Dr. Rajesh Kumar Pandey, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 679, that if the award has not been made within the requisite time period on account of proceedings pending in a Court of Law and an interim order granted therein, the Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:ROHIT W.P.(C) 8214/2013 & connected matters Page 25 of 29 KUMAR PATEL Signing Date:24.12.2024 07:45:02 provisions of the LA Act, 2013 would not become applicable merely on account of the award having been not made prior to 01.01.2014. It has been categorically held therein as under :-
Delhi High Court Cites 41 - Cited by 0 - S Datta - Full Document

Pankaj Tandon & Ors vs Lt Governor Of Nct Of Delhi & Anr on 24 December, 2024

43. Even assuming that the issuance of award was precluded on account of status quo order, the same cannot lead to a situation where compensation payable to the petitioner/ land owner is to be assessed on the basis of the LA Act, 2013 (which is the main prayer under the amended writ petition).It has been held clearly in Faizabad-Ayodhya Development Authority v. Dr. Rajesh Kumar Pandey, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 679, that if the award has not been made within the requisite time period on account of proceedings pending in a Court of Law and an interim order granted therein, the Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:ROHIT W.P.(C) 8214/2013 & connected matters Page 25 of 29 KUMAR PATEL Signing Date:24.12.2024 07:45:02 provisions of the LA Act, 2013 would not become applicable merely on account of the award having been not made prior to 01.01.2014. It has been categorically held therein as under :-
Delhi High Court Cites 41 - Cited by 0 - S Datta - Full Document

M/S Rishyab Infratech Pvt. Ltd. vs Lt. Governor Nct Of Delhi & Anr on 24 December, 2024

43. Even assuming that the issuance of award was precluded on account of status quo order, the same cannot lead to a situation where compensation payable to the petitioner/ land owner is to be assessed on the basis of the LA Act, 2013 (which is the main prayer under the amended writ petition).It has been held clearly in Faizabad-Ayodhya Development Authority v. Dr. Rajesh Kumar Pandey, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 679, that if the award has not been made within the requisite time period on account of proceedings pending in a Court of Law and an interim order granted therein, the Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:ROHIT W.P.(C) 8214/2013 & connected matters Page 25 of 29 KUMAR PATEL Signing Date:24.12.2024 07:45:02 provisions of the LA Act, 2013 would not become applicable merely on account of the award having been not made prior to 01.01.2014. It has been categorically held therein as under :-
Delhi High Court Cites 41 - Cited by 0 - S Datta - Full Document

M/S Annapoorna Industrial Corporation vs Lt. Governor Nct Of Delhi & Anr on 24 December, 2024

43. Even assuming that the issuance of award was precluded on account of status quo order, the same cannot lead to a situation where compensation payable to the petitioner/ land owner is to be assessed on the basis of the LA Act, 2013 (which is the main prayer under the amended writ petition).It has been held clearly in Faizabad-Ayodhya Development Authority v. Dr. Rajesh Kumar Pandey, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 679, that if the award has not been made within the requisite time period on account of proceedings pending in a Court of Law and an interim order granted therein, the Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:ROHIT W.P.(C) 8214/2013 & connected matters Page 25 of 29 KUMAR PATEL Signing Date:24.12.2024 07:45:02 provisions of the LA Act, 2013 would not become applicable merely on account of the award having been not made prior to 01.01.2014. It has been categorically held therein as under :-
Delhi High Court Cites 41 - Cited by 0 - S Datta - Full Document
1   2 3 Next