Act/Law wise: Judgment of Supreme Court of India



Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition,......... Act, 2013
Section/Order/ Article/Rule/ Regulation Head Note Parties Name Reference/Citation
Section 15(2)

Objections to the proposed acquisition land–
We find that the Collector neither gave any opportunity to the appellants as contemplated under Section 15(2) of the Act and nor submitted any report as provided under Section 15(2) of the Act to the Government so as to enable the Government to take appropriate decision. In other words, we find that there is non-compliance of Section 15(2) of the Act by the Collector. In our view, it is mandatory on the part of the Collector to comply with the procedure prescribed under Section 15(2) of the Act so as to make the acquisition proceedings legal and in conformity with the provisions of the Act. We hereby direct the respondent No.2 herein (Collector, Winter Field, Shimla-3 HP) to decide the objections filed by the appellants on 05.01.2016 keeping in view the requirements of Section 15(2) of the Act and pass appropriate orders. .....Shiv Singh =VS= State of Himachal Pradesh, (Civil), 2018 (2) [5 LM (SC) 26] ....View Full Judgment

Shiv Singh =VS= State of Himachal Pradesh 5 LM (SC) 26
Section 24(2)

The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013
Section 24(2) r/w
The Land Acquisition Act, 1894
Section 31, 34
Compensation–– The Impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court, it is seen that the High Court has ordered lapsing of the land in question under Section 24 of the Act, 2013 relying upon the decision of this Court in the case of Pune Municipal Corporation and Anr. Vs. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki and Ors. (2014) 3 SCC 183 and on the ground that the compensation has not been paid to the landowners. However, it is required to be noted that before the High Court, it was the specific case on behalf of the Delhi Development Authority that the possession of the land in question has already been taken. As observed hereinabove on the ground that the compensation has not been paid to the landowner relying upon the decision of this Court in the case of Pune Municipal Corporation and Anr. (supra), the High Court has allowed the said writ petition and has declared that the acquisition with respect to the land in question has lapsed. ––The case of Indore Development Authority (supra), specifically overruling the decision of this Court in the case of Pune Municipal Corporation and Anr. (supra) relied upon by the High Court while passing the impugned judgment and order, the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court is unsustainable and the same deserves to be quashed and set aside. .....Delhi Development Authority =VS= Bhagwat Singh, (Civil), 2022(2) [13 LM (SC) 6] ....View Full Judgment

Delhi Development Authority =VS= Bhagwat Singh 13 LM (SC) 6