Want to be a
Soolegal Member
Team SoOLEGAL
28 Feb 2019 3:18pm

Supreme Court Refers Tarun Pal Case To A Larger Bench

0
0
4
0

In Delhi Metro Rail Corporation v. Tarun Pal Singh, it was held that the proviso to Section 24 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 governs Section 24(2) and not Section 24(1)(b).

The Supreme Court bench comprised of Justice Rohinton Fali Nariman and Justice Vineet Saran. The bench had the opinion that the proviso is really a proviso to Section 24(1)(b) and not to Section 24(2). According to the bench, there would exist no inconsistency or repugnancy between the proviso and Section 24(1)(b) of the Act, but if the proviso is read as a proviso to Section 24(2), many anomalies arise.

It could not possibly have been the unintended result of a proviso taking away lapsing of the acquisition where the subject matter of the proviso is wholly unrelated to physical possession of land but only related to compensation not being paid, said the bench. Some of the reasons given were

1.      Whether compensation in respect of a majority of land holdings has or has not been deposited would have no bearing on whether lapsing does or does not take place under a totally independent provision, namely, Section 24(2). 

2.      Whether compensation in respect of a majority of land holdings has or has not been deposited would have no bearing on whether lapsing does or does not take place under a totally independent provision, namely, Section 24(2). 

Hence, the above judgment was referred by the bench to a larger bench for reconsideration.

 


Tagged: delhimtero tarunpalsingh section24 supremecourt landacquisition resettlement
Did you find this write-up useful? YES 2 NO 0
Active Members view all

New Members view all