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
5 paragraphs · 101 wordsKurian, J.—Leave granted.
It is the case of the appellants that possession could not be taken and compensation could not be paid because of interim order operating in the case of adjacent acquisitions.
It is not in dispute that in the case of the respondents herein, there was no stay operating.
Therefore, nothing prevented the appellants from either taking possession or paying the compensation to the respondents.
Neither having been done within five years, as contemplated under Section 24(2) of The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, we find