AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
6 paragraphs · 174 wordsKurian, J.—Leave granted.
Despite findings regarding lapse, the party-respondents have submitted that since the land has been utilized for a public purpose, they would be satisfied with compensation worked out under The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.
Admittedly, no compensation has been paid either to the original owner(s) or to the alleged subsequent purchaser(s). Therefore, this case is covered by Delhi Development Authority v. Sukhbir Singh & Ors. Reported in 2016 (8) SCALE 655.
The only direction issued by the High Court, however, in the peculiar facts of the case, is to work out the compensation under the 2013 Act and disburse the same within the stipulated time.
We see no reason to interfere with the just order passed by the High Court on the fair submission made by the respondents. The appeal is, hence, dismissed. The appellant is granted six months'' time to work out the compensation and disburse the same in terms of the impugned order.
No costs.