IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

ORDER XXI RULE 3 (1) (a)
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO. OF 2018
WITH PRAYER FOR INTERIM RELIEF
BETWEEN:
POSITION OF PARTIES
BEFORE THE IN THIS
HIGH COURT HON’BLE
COURT

1. Delhi Development Authority

Through Vice Chairman
Vikas Sadan
INA Market, New Delhi Respondent No. 2 Petitioner No.1

VERSUS
1. Shri Prakash
S/o late sh. Bhule Ram
R/o house no. 596,
Chauhan Mohalla,
Vill. Madanpur khaddar,
New Delhi. Petitioner No.1 Respondent No.1

2. Shri Brahm Prakash

S/o Late Sh. Bhule Ram
R/o House No. 596,
Chauhan Mohalla,
Vill. Madanpur khaddar,
New Delhi. Petitioner No. 2 Respondent No. 2
 PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 136 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF
INDIA

TO
THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE OF INDIA AND HIS
COMPANION JUSTICES OF THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

THE HUMBLE PETITION OF THE

PETITIONER COMPANY ABOVENAMED

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:

1. That this Special Leave Petition is filed against the

impugned final judgment and order dated 08.03.2018

passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in

W.P (C) 11181/2015. By its impugned order, the Hon’ble

High Court has disposed the writ petition of the respondent

herein ordering compensation to be released within one

year from the judgment date.

2. QUESTIONS OF LAW:

i. Whether the “Right to Fair Compensation and

Transparency in Land Acquisition Rehabilitation and

Resettlement Act, 2013” in any manner can reopen the

 acquisition proceedings which have become final under

the provision of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.

ii. Whether it was the intention of the legislature while

framing the law that the acquisition would lapse even

when the possession of the land had been taken by the

authorities.

iii. Whether the reliance of the petitioner on and reference

to Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and

Transparency in Land Acquisition Rehabilitation and

Resettlement Act, 2013” is baseless and misconceived.

iv. Whether any interpretation can be afforded to any provision

of any statue so as to enlarge the scope of the same in any

manner whatsoever, so as to include things which are not

specifically mentioned.

v. Whether the acquisition lapse when possession of

substantial part of the land has been taken and

compensation has also been paid to the large number of

interested persons according to Section 24 of the Act.

3. DECLARATION IN TERMS OF RULE 3(2):

The Petitioner states that no other petition seeking

leave to appeal has been filed against the impugned final

 judgment and order dated 08.03.2018 passed by the

Hon’ble High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in W.P (C)

11181/2015.

4. DECLARATION IN TERMS OF RULE 5:

The Annexures P–1 to P- produced along with the SLP

are true/ photocopies of the pleadings/documents which

formed part of the records of the case in the Hon’ble

High Court against whose order the leave to appeal is

sought for in this petition.

5. GROUNDS:

That the present SLP has been filed on the following

amongst other grounds

GROUNDS

I. For that the reliance of the Respondent herein on and

reference to Section 24(2) of the “Right to Fair

Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition

Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013” is baselsess

and misconceived. The petitioner failed to consider the

true effect of Section 24.

II. For that the Respondent had not came with clean hands as

Respondents have not placed on record on any document

through which he is claiming his right and tittle over the

land in question to show that he has any right, title or

interest in the land in question.

III. For that the Respondent have not stated nor shown

anything to show that the name of the Respondents were

included in the award nor have placed on record any

document to show that the Respondent have any right to

institute the writ petition in the High Court.

IV. For that the courts below failed to appreciate that the

acquisition proceedings under Award no. 20/92-93 dated

19.06.1992 have become final under the provisions of the land

acquisition Act, 1894 with respect to the land in question.

V. For that the question of a fresh acquisition would arise and the

provisions of the “Right to Fair Compensation and

Transparency in Land Acquisition Rehabilitation and

Resettlement Act, 2013” be attracted when the whole

process of acquisition under The Land Acquisition Act,1894

 is said set to naught and the ownership of the land and

possession restored.

VI. For that the courts below failed to appreciate that as per the

proviso of Section 24 of the Right to Fair Compensation and

Transparency in Land Acquisition Rehabilitation and

Resettlement Act, 2013 if compensation is not paid to

majority of the interested persons, even then the

acquisition does not lapse; the issue only becomes one of

rate of compensation. The correct interpretation of the

proviso to section 24 also clarifies that if compensation

has been paid to majority of interested persons, the

acquisition does not lapse. Insofar as the

acquisition/village in question is concerned, it is verily

believed that possession of substantial part of the land

has been taken and compensation has also been paid to

large number of interested persons.

VII. For that the land owners have failed in their challenge under

the provision of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, they cannot

now turn around and say that the acquisition proceedings

were pending and have lapsed.

6. GROUNDS FOR INTERIM RELIEF:

(i) The Petitioner says and submits that pending the hearing

and final disposal of this Special Leave Petition, it is

absolutely imperative and necessary in the interest of

justice that the impugned final judgment and order dated

08.03.2018 passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi at

New Delhi in W.P (C) 11181/2015 be stayed. The

Petitioner states that if the impugned final judgment and

order dated 08.03.2018 is not stayed pending the

hearing of the present petition, then it would seriously

and prejudicially affect the case of the Petitioner herein;

(ii) That the stay of the impugned judgment is necessary as

the Petitioner is apprehending contempt against it;

(iii) No harm, loss and/or injury will be caused to the

Respondent if the further proceedings is stayed pending

the present Petition. In the alternative, the present

petition will be rendered infructuous if the stay of the

impugned order is not granted as prayed for.

7. MAIN PRAYER:

It is most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may

be pleased to:
 A. Grant Special Leave to Appeal against the final impugned

judgment and order dated 08.03.2018 passed by the

Hon’ble High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in W.P (C)

11181/2015; and

B. Pass any such other or further order or orders as this Hon’ble

Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances

of the case.

8. PRAYER FOR INTERIM RELIEF:

It is respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be

pleased to:

A) ex-parte stay the final impugned judgment and order dated

08.03.2018 passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi at New

Delhi in W.P (C) 11181/2015; and

B) Pass any such other or further order or orders as this Hon’ble

Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances

of the case and in the interest of justice.

AND FOR THIS ACT OF KINDNESS THE PETITIONERS SHALL
AS IN DUTY BOUND, EVER PRAY.
DRAWN & FILED BY

DRAWN ON: (ARTI SINGH)

FILED ON: ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER