(Kurian Joseph and Rohinton Fali Nariman, JJ.)
Delhi Development Authority __________________________ Appellant
v.
Pritam Singh @ Pritam and Ors. ____________________ Respondent(s)
Civil Appeal No. 8519 of 2016 [Arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 19772 of 2015], decided on August 31, 2016
The Judgement of the Court was delivered by
Kurian, J.:—
1. Leave granted.
2. The issue, in principle, is covered against the appellant by judgment in Civil Appeal No. 8477 of 2016 arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 8467 of 2015.
3. This appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.
4. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, the appellant is given a period of one year to exercise its liberty granted under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 for initiation of the acquisition proceedings afresh.
5. We make it clear that in case no fresh acquisition proceedings are initiated within the said period of one year from today by issuing a Notification under Section 11 of the Act, the appellant, if in possession, shall return the physical possession of the land to the original land owner.
6. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 19772/2015
Delhi Development Authority __________________________ Petitioner
v.
Pritam Singh @ Pritam and Ors _____________________ Respondent(s)
Date: 31/08/2016 This petition was called on for hearing today.
(Before Kurian Joseph and Rohinton Fali Nariman, JJ.)
For Petitioner(s) Mr. Amrendra Sharan, Sr. Adv.
Ms. Binu Tamta, Adv.
Mr. Dhruv Tamta, Adv.
For Respondent(s) Mr. Ranjit Kumar, SG
Mr. Praneet Pranav, Adv.
Mr. Bharat Lal Shivhare, Adv.
Ms. Sushma Suri, Adv.
For Mr. D. S. Mahra, Adv.
Mr. Ravinder Sethi, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Rajiv Kumar Ghawna, Adv.
Mr. Md. Amanullah, Adv.
Ms. Shabeena Anjum, Adv.
Mr. M. Tariq, Adv.
Mr. T. V. S. Raghavendra Sreyas, Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
Order
7. Leave granted.
8. The appeal is dismissed in terms of the non-reportable judgment.
———
