Certo Is this judgment real?
Beta, Supreme Court only. We check Supreme Court of India judgments only for now: a High Court citation reads "Not in our corpus", which never means it does not exist.

Supreme Court of India

DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY versus REENA SURI AND ORS.

Decided
28 April 2016
Judges listed
KURIAN JOSEPH (as the open data lists them; this may not name the whole bench)
Disposal
Dismissed

Citations

Official
[2016] 2 S.C.R. 396 · 2016 INSC 352
Also cited as
  • (2016) 12 SCC 649 (4 citing judgments)

Learned from how other judgments cite this one, in their text or in the official Supreme Court Reports' lists of cases they refer to: each is cited this way by at least two judgments, and at least twice as often as any other citation to this judgment in that report. We hold no commercial reporter's text, only these citation strings.

Not shown
2 other citation strings that other judgments attach to this one, on evidence too thin or too divided to publish.

Cited by

We found no other Supreme Court judgment we hold that cites this one.

Counted only in the Supreme Court judgments we hold whose text we could read, not in High Court judgments. We match each citation to a judgment automatically, so a citation we cannot match is not counted. "Cited" says only that a judgment refers to this one, not whether it followed, distinguished or overruled it.

The Court's text

Paragraphs from our copy of the Supreme Court Reports print, with the Court's own paragraph numbers, the printed page and, where printed, the margin letter. Link to paragraph N with #para-N.

1

Leave granted.

p. 398, margin D

2

All these appeals have been filed by the Delhi Development Authority, aggrieved by the Judgment of the High Court of Delhi. In the impugned Judgment, the High Court has taken the stand that the land acquisition initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, and culminating in passing of awards on different dates, has lapsed in view of Section 24 of The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (in short, "2013 Act") in respect of the land covered by these appeals. Section 24 of the Act reads as follows:- "24. Land acquisition process under Act No. 1 of 1894 shall be deemed to have lapsed in certain cases - (I) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, in any case of land acquisition proceedings initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894,- (a) where no award under section 11 of the said Land Acquisition Act has been made, then, all provisions of this Act relating to the determination of compensation shall apply; or (b) where an award under said section 11 has been made, then such proceedings shall continue under the provisions of the said Land Acquisition Act, as ifthe said Act has not been repealed. (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section ( 1 ), in case of land acquisition proceedings initiated under the Land Acquisition Act. 1894, where an award under the said seetion 11 has been made five years or more prior to the commencement of this Act but the physical possession of the land has not been taken or the compensation has not been paid the ·said proceedings shall be deemed to have lapsed and the appropriate Government, if it so chooses, shall initiate the proceedings of such land acquisition afresh in accordance with the provisions of this Act: Provided that where an award has been made and compensation in respect of a majority ofland holdings has not been deposited in the account of the beneficiaries, then, all beneficiaries specified in the notification for acquisition under section 4 of the said Land Acquisition Act, shall be entitled to eompensation in accordance with the provisions of this Act"

pp. 398–399, margin D

3

It may be seen that under Section 24(2) of the Act, the proceedings initiated under the LandAcquisitionAct, 1894 and culminating in award under Section 11 of the said Act would lapse in case the possession, after passing of the award has not been taken within five years or more prior to the commencement of the 2013 Act (9 of2014). This Act came into force on 01.01.2014. Under Section 24 (2) of the 2013 Act, the proceedings would also lapse in case the compensation has not been paid to the owners of the land before 01.01.2014. However, it is made clear under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act that despite such ]apse, it will be open to the appropriate Government to initiate fresh proceedings for acquisition in accordance with the provisions of the 2013 Act.

p. 399, margin D

4

Sh. Vishnu Saharya, learned counsel appearing forthe appellant- Delhi Development Authority, has submitted that once an award has been passed, the property vests in the Government and, therefore, there is no lapse. We are afraid, the contentions raised by him cannot be appreciated.

p. 399, margin F

5

Section 16 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 reads as follows:- "Power to take possession - When the Collector has made an · award under Section 11, he may take possession of the land, which shall thereupon [vest absolutely in the [Government]], free from all encumbrances."

pp. 399–400, margin F

6

Under the above provision, once an award has been made by the Collector under Section 11 of the Act, 1894, the Collector has to take possession of the land and only thereupon, the land will vest in the Government free from all encumbrances. Therefore, passing of the award by itself will not enable the appellant to take a contention that the land has automatically vested with the Government on passing of the award.

p. 400, margin A

7

It is not in dispute that in all these cases, the land has not been taken possession of by the Collector within five years or more prior to 01.01.2014 when the 2013 Act came into force.

p. 400, margin C

8

In that view of the matter, there is no merit in these appeals. The appeals are, accordingly, dismissed. No costs. Appeals dismissed.

p. 400, margin C