Kurian Joseph, J.
Delay condoned.
2. Leave granted.
3. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the award could not be passed on account of the operation of stay. Apparently, there is no stay after 2010. If that be so, there is no merit in the contention taken by the appellant that the stay order granted by the Court prevented the award being passed within the time permitted under Section 11A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
4. Therefore, this appeal is dismissed.
No costs.
Delhi Development Authority v. Radha Nagpal
Delhi Development Authority v. Radha Nagpal
(Supreme Court Of India)
Civil Appeal No. 12072 Of 2016 (@ Special Leave Petition (C) No. 36617 Of 2016 (@ Special Leave Petition (C).Cc No. 23707 Of 2016 | 14-12-2016
Advocate List
Bench
- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KURIAN JOSEPH
- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN
Eq Citations
- 2017 (1) SCALE 424
- (2017) 1 SCC 411
- LQ/SC/2016/1601
Head Note
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 — S. 11-A — Time limit for passing award — Stay order preventing award being passed within time limit — Held, if there is no stay after 2010, then stay order granted by Court prevented award being passed within time permitted under S. 11-A — Hence, no merit in contention that stay order granted by Court prevented award being passed within time permitted under S. 11-A — Therefore, appeal dismissed
