Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

NPR - Northern Peripheral Road, Dwarka Expressway, Gurgaon Updates

Collapse
This is a sticky topic.
X
X
Collapse

NPR - Northern Peripheral Road, Dwarka Expressway, Gurgaon Updates

Last updated: 1 hour ago
21720 | Posts
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Re : NPR - Northern Peripheral Road, Dwarka Expressway, Gurgaon Updates

    As per law retrospective clause shall impose and according to 2013 act all the acquisition are liable to lapse and new acquisition notice shall issues under new act.  If this order convert in verdict than HUDA has no ground to make claim over notified land. Here one thing must consider that 5 year period for possession had already expired in March-14 and section 24(2) correctly directed. 
    Sab 99 ka fer hain............

    Comment


    • Re : NPR - Northern Peripheral Road, Dwarka Expressway, Gurgaon Updates

      The 2013 Act has since been modified by the "Land Acquisition Ordinance" which was put into effect recently and as such the court when ruling on the 2013 act will have to give amendments to the act under the ordinance due consideration and this should I think be quite helpful. Maybe some legal minds want to comment

      Comment


      • Re : NPR - Northern Peripheral Road, Dwarka Expressway, Gurgaon Updates

        19. In order to clarify the statutory provisions of the Act 2013 with respect to such lapsing, the Government of India, Ministry of Urban Development, Delhi Division, came up with a circular dated 14.3.2014 wherein on the basis of the legal opinion of the Solicitor General of India, it has been clarified as under:

        "3. Interpretation of five years period: "With regard to this issue viz., interpretation of five years period two situations have been envisaged in cases where the acquisition has been initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 viz., (1) parties whose lands have been acquired have refused to accept the compensation and (2) parties whose lands have been acquired having just parted with physical possession of the land. However, in both the above situations, as on 1.1.2014, the period of 5 years would not have ended and in such cases, the advisory seeks to clarify that the new law shall apply only if the situation of pendency continues unchanged for a period that equals to or exceeds five years.

        Can some legal expert lawyer members explain the above point.

        Comment


        • Re : NPR - Northern Peripheral Road, Dwarka Expressway, Gurgaon Updates

          Originally posted by rohit20_in View Post
          The issue of Deway is totally depressing.

          Today i sold my flat in Ramprastha(edge towers) at 3600 psft. I had booked in 2010 at rate of 2750.
          I'm not sure weather this is good decision or bad...only time till tell. But i feel relieved as if a burden is removed of my shoulders. I dont give a shit to Deway anymore.

          May i know ur flat n tower which you sold ? What was the size ?

          Comment


          • Re : NPR - Northern Peripheral Road, Dwarka Expressway, Gurgaon Updates

            This is to follow up on Khalsa Ji’s post. There is something positive in the opinion given by the Solicitor General of India from NPR point of view. Even though, the opinion mentioned that the period of litigation will be counted towards calculating the period of five years, to my mind, the opinion given sought to make a distinction between cases where the period of 5 years had already expired as on 01.01.2014 and where 5 years period had not expired. Following is the relevant extract from the opinion mentioned under point:

            “4. Limitation:

            As regards this item relating to the period spent during litigation would also be accounted for the purpose of determining whether the period of five years has to be counted or not, it should be clarified that it will apply only to where the awards were passed under section 11 of the land acquisition act 1894, 5 years or more prior to 01.01.2014 as specified in section 24(2) of the act, to avoid any ambiguity.”

            Therefore, the way I read it, there is a possibility that the NPV litigants may not qualify for relief under section 24(2) of the new act as per Solicitor General’s opinion. The rationale behind this opinion, to my mind, appears to be that if someone’s land is acquired, that person will approach the court and drag the case for 5 years, and ultimately get the land released. This would lead to every case of acquisition going in for litigation. It is this provision that has been sought to be plugged by the new Land Acquisition Ordinance also notified on Dec 31, 2014 that has added the following a proviso to subsection 24(2):

            6. In the principal Act, in section 24, in sub-section (2), after the proviso, the following proviso shall be inserted, namely. —
            "Provided further that in computing the period referred to in this sub-section, any period or periods during which the proceedings for acquisition of the land were held up on account of any stay or injunction issued by any court or the period specified in the award of a Tribunal for taking possession or such period where possession has been taken but the compensation lying deposited in a court or in any account maintained for this purpose shall be excluded."

            However, this ordinance is not retrospective. The opening statement of the ordinance reads like this:
            MINISTRY OF LAW AND JUSTICE
            (Legislative Department)
            New Delhi, the 31st December, 2014/Pausa 10, 1936 (Saka)
            1. (l) This Ordinance may be called the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement (Amendment) Ordinance, 2014.
            (2) It shall come into force at once.

            Therefore, the amendment may not be applicable to NPR litigants as the period of 5 years had already expired on Dec 23, 2014 that would have triggered the deeming provision of section 24(2). The NPR litigation, I feel, will be governed by the provisions of the original act of 2013 and the opinion of the Solicitor General will be relevant. But so far, there is no Supreme Court case that has dealt with a case where the period of 5 years expired after 01.01.2014 and the opinion of the Solicitor General relating to acquisitions where the 5 year period had not expired as of 01.01.2014 has not been tested so far.

            However, the positive side from NPR point of view is that even under THE SECOND SCHEDULE of the new act - If a house is lost in urban areas, a constructed house shall areas, a constructed house shall be provided, which will be not less than 50 sq mts in plinth area.

            Now, let us understand the situation from the perspective of HUDA and the litigants:

            HUDA would be under pressure to negotiate with the house owners lest section 24(2) becomes applicable and acquisition stands expired. They will have to re-acquire the land, that will have its own set of complications. On the other hand, land owners would have a vested interest to settle as what they would be getting from Haryana Govt will be more than what would be provided under the new act assuming that they realise that ultimately the road has to come and their houses would have to go. Therefore, there is going to be a lot of action in coming days. But it will ultimately be in the interest of NPR as it will lead to an an early resolution of the issue as the new developments can no longer be pushed under the carpet.

            Comment


            • Re : NPR - Northern Peripheral Road, Dwarka Expressway, Gurgaon Updates

              List of Supreme Court Judgments on Section 24(2)

              Supreme Court Judgements
              Civil Appeal No. 10954 of 2014
              Civil Appeal Nos 8701-8704 of 2014
              Civil Appeal No 5478-5483 of 2014
              Civil Appeal No 1971 of 2014
              Civil Appeal No.877 of 2014
              Civil Appeal No 8785 of 2013
              Civil Appeal No. 4284 of 2011

              Comment


              • Re : NPR - Northern Peripheral Road, Dwarka Expressway, Gurgaon Updates

                Pune Municipal Corporation Case

                Civil Appeal No.877 of 2014

                Comment


                • Re : NPR - Northern Peripheral Road, Dwarka Expressway, Gurgaon Updates

                  Choma1 ji,
                  Thanks,
                  You have explained it very well in details.
                  After seeing your first post I thought what is this new development of 5 year story which I was not aware before.

                  Comment


                  • Re : NPR - Northern Peripheral Road, Dwarka Expressway, Gurgaon Updates

                    Originally posted by Choma1 View Post
                    This is to follow up on Khalsa Ji’s post. There is something positive in the opinion given by the Solicitor General of India from NPR point of view. Even though, the opinion mentioned that the period of litigation will be counted towards calculating the period of five years, to my mind, the opinion given sought to make a distinction between cases where the period of 5 years had already expired as on 01.01.2014 and where 5 years period had not expired. Following is the relevant extract from the opinion mentioned under point:

                    “4. Limitation:

                    As regards this item relating to the period spent during litigation would also be accounted for the purpose of determining whether the period of five years has to be counted or not, it should be clarified that it will apply only to where the awards were passed under section 11 of the land acquisition act 1894, 5 years or more prior to 01.01.2014 as specified in section 24(2) of the act, to avoid any ambiguity.”

                    Therefore, the way I read it, there is a possibility that the NPV litigants may not qualify for relief under section 24(2) of the new act as per Solicitor General’s opinion. The rationale behind this opinion, to my mind, appears to be that if someone’s land is acquired, that person will approach the court and drag the case for 5 years, and ultimately get the land released. This would lead to every case of acquisition going in for litigation. It is this provision that has been sought to be plugged by the new Land Acquisition Ordinance also notified on Dec 31, 2014 that has added the following a proviso to subsection 24(2):

                    6. In the principal Act, in section 24, in sub-section (2), after the proviso, the following proviso shall be inserted, namely. —
                    "Provided further that in computing the period referred to in this sub-section, any period or periods during which the proceedings for acquisition of the land were held up on account of any stay or injunction issued by any court or the period specified in the award of a Tribunal for taking possession or such period where possession has been taken but the compensation lying deposited in a court or in any account maintained for this purpose shall be excluded."

                    However, this ordinance is not retrospective. The opening statement of the ordinance reads like this:
                    MINISTRY OF LAW AND JUSTICE
                    (Legislative Department)
                    New Delhi, the 31st December, 2014/Pausa 10, 1936 (Saka)
                    1. (l) This Ordinance may be called the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement (Amendment) Ordinance, 2014.
                    (2) It shall come into force at once.

                    Therefore, the amendment may not be applicable to NPR litigants as the period of 5 years had already expired on Dec 23, 2014 that would have triggered the deeming provision of section 24(2). The NPR litigation, I feel, will be governed by the provisions of the original act of 2013 and the opinion of the Solicitor General will be relevant. But so far, there is no Supreme Court case that has dealt with a case where the period of 5 years expired after 01.01.2014 and the opinion of the Solicitor General relating to acquisitions where the 5 year period had not expired as of 01.01.2014 has not been tested so far.

                    However, the positive side from NPR point of view is that even under THE SECOND SCHEDULE of the new act - If a house is lost in urban areas, a constructed house shall areas, a constructed house shall be provided, which will be not less than 50 sq mts in plinth area.

                    Now, let us understand the situation from the perspective of HUDA and the litigants:

                    HUDA would be under pressure to negotiate with the house owners lest section 24(2) becomes applicable and acquisition stands expired. They will have to re-acquire the land, that will have its own set of complications. On the other hand, land owners would have a vested interest to settle as what they would be getting from Haryana Govt will be more than what would be provided under the new act assuming that they realise that ultimately the road has to come and their houses would have to go. Therefore, there is going to be a lot of action in coming days. But it will ultimately be in the interest of NPR as it will lead to an an early resolution of the issue as the new developments can no longer be pushed under the carpet.
                    ................


                    HUDA would be under pressure to negotiate with the house owners lest section 24(2) becomes applicable and acquisition stands expired. They will have to re-acquire the land, that will have its own set of complications. On the other hand, land owners would have a vested interest to settle as what they would be getting from Haryana Govt will be more than what would be provided under the new act assuming that they realise that ultimately the road has to come and their houses would have to go. Therefore, there is going to be a lot of action in coming days. But it will ultimately be in the interest of NPR as it will lead to an an early resolution of the issue as the new developments can no longer be pushed under the carpet.

                    Hi
                    Greetings

                    Thanks mate for putting things into perspective and with relevants facts including the 2013 legislation and the recent ordinance.

                    It is now clear that the 5 yr period including delays due to ligitation has expired and as said "HUDA would be under pressure"

                    For now, we have to wait for
                    -fresh acquisition notice with a fresh moratorium period,
                    -fresh applications from those affected,
                    -list of those who have received and those who were yet to receive compensation,
                    -list of those who have received compensation but would now move court, as those who chose to litigate seem to have benefited now, under the new act and latter ordinance
                    -Arrangement by HUDA for alternative plots/land as per the act and demarcation for rural and/or urban area land being acquired under dwarka expressway
                    -Arrangement by huda for alternative Constructed houses as per the act and demarcation for rural and/or urban area land being acquired under dwarka expressway

                    Unfortunately, it is to ask for TOO MUCH from a corrupt, lethargic and incompetent department with no precedence of swift and apt decision making. Unless a few self respecting officers, still available are given charge and freedom of decision making.

                    NET NET 2 years minimum, for a possible resolution (if all goes well)!!!

                    Please update on status of 37/99-ROB, Delhi and NH8 Alternate connectivity!!!!


                    Cheers
                    Last edited by BlessU; January 26 2015, 08:59 AM.

                    Comment


                    • Re : NPR - Northern Peripheral Road, Dwarka Expressway, Gurgaon Updates

                      I corrected myself, 5 yrs period expired on October-14 not in March-14.

                      In last press conference litigants has already disagreed on LARR 2013, therefore any fresh notification whenever published after court verdict could also challenge in court and leaving all of us in the situation as it was in 2008.
                      Sab 99 ka fer hain............

                      Comment

                      Have any questions or thoughts about this?
                      Working...
                      X