Delhi Development Authority vs Sukhbir Singh & Ors on 9 September, 2016
In fact,
in Sukhbir Singh (supra), the Court refused to accept the plea that physical
possession was not taken. This decision, therefore, is not helpful to the
Petitioners.
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 9 of 9 (0.21 seconds)Section 17 in The Right To Fair Compensation And Transparency In Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 [Entire Act]
Section 24 in The Right To Fair Compensation And Transparency In Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 [Entire Act]
Pune Municipalc Corp.& Anr vs Harakchand Misirimal Solanki & Ors on 24 January, 2014
7. It is contended by the Petitioners that although Section 17 of the LAA was
invoked, the Respondents did not "even take physical possession of the suit
property much less commencement of the development for the alleged
purpose." Mr. Gupta relied upon on the decisions in Pune Municipal
Corporation v. Harakchand Misrimal Solanki (2014) 3 SCC 183 and Delhi
Development Authority v. Sukhbir Singh AIR 2016 SC 4275 to urge that as
W.P.(C) 5647/2016 & connected matters Page 5 of 12
long as possession of the plot remained with the Petitioners, it would not
matter if they had received compensation since one of the conditions
specified under Section 24 (2) of the 2013 Act stood fulfilled and this was
sufficient for a declaration that the land acquisition proceedings were
deemed to have lapsed. It is stated that on 8th June, 2016, the DDA unloaded
bricks near the suit property with mala fide intention of raising a boundary
wall.
Section 4 in The Right To Fair Compensation And Transparency In Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 [Entire Act]
Section 6 in The Right To Fair Compensation And Transparency In Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 [Entire Act]
Mahavir Singh Aswal vs Union Of India And Anr on 28 April, 2016
In Mahavir v. Union of India (2018) 3 SCC 588, the Supreme Court
observed as under:
Executive Engineer, Jal Nigam Central ... vs Suresha Nand Juyal @ Musa Ram (Deceased) ... on 14 March, 1997
16. Once the compensation has been admittedly received in full and the
Petitioners have in writing conveyed to the LAC that they gave up
possession on 5th September, 2002 itself, the only inference could be that
which is noticed in Suresh Nand Juyal (supra) that the Petitioners have
again trespassed into the land after surrendering it. Consequently, none of
the conditionalities attached to Section 24 (2) of the 2013 Act is fulfilled in
the present case.
Raghbir Singh Sehrawat vs State Of Haryana & Ors on 23 November, 2011
14. Further, the Court finds that in DDA v. Sukhbir Singh (supra), the
Supreme Court referred to an earlier decision in Raghbir Singh Sehrawat v.
State of Haryana (2012) 1 SCC 792, where the legal position was explained
as under:
1