CaseMinister
CaseMinister › Judgments › Supreme Court › 2017 › Malik Industry v. The State of Haryana State of Haryana .

Malik Industry v. The State of Haryana State of Haryana .

Supreme Court of India · 12 December 2017

Court
Supreme Court of India
Decided
12 December 2017
Case no.
C.A. No. 21802-21803 of 2017
Bench
Kurian Joseph, Amitava Roy
Author
Kurian Joseph
Length
2 pages
Have a question about this judgment?

Ask our Legal AI about it on WhatsApp: free, no signup, in English or Hindi.

Write it first.

NON-REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 21802-21803/2017
(ARISING FROM SLP (C) NOS.37089-37090 OF 2013)

MALIK INDUSTRY & ANR. APPELLANT(S)

VERSUS

STATE OF HARYANA & ORS.
RESPONDENT(S)

JUDGMENT KURIAN, J.

Leave granted.

2. The appellant approached this Court with certain grievances with regard to the acquisition of their land. During the pendency of these appeals, the appellants filed an interlocutory application praying for a declaration to the effect that on account of operation of Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, the whole acquisition has lapsed. Pursuant to the directions issued by this Court, the respondents have filed a Status Report. It is admitted that in the case of the appellants, the compensation amount has not been paid to them; it was only deposited with the Land Acquisition Collector.

3. Therefore, the judgment of this Court in Pune Municipal Corporation & Anr., v. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki & Ors., reported in (2014) 3 SCC 183, as it stands today, squarely applies to these appeals.

4. Accordingly, the appeals are allowed. The land acquisition proceedings initiated against the appellants stand lapsed. However, the respondents are given the opportunity to initiate proceedings afresh under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, within a period of six months from today.

5. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.

6. There shall be no orders as to costs.

.......................J. [KURIAN JOSEPH]

.......................J. [AMITAVA ROY] NEW DELHI; DECEMBER 12, 2017.

Ask CaseMinister about Malik Industry v. The State of Haryana State of Haryana .

Your 24×7 legal assistant on WhatsApp answers with the judgments that apply, in English or Hindi. No signup needed.

Questions about this judgment, or a case like it?Ask on WhatsApp