M/S Rishyab Infratech Pvt. Ltd. vs Lt. Governor Nct Of Delhi & Anr

ik-64431286 Delhi High Court 24 December 2024 • 40 min read

Judges (2)

Sachin Datta Delivered Vibhu Bakhru Coram

Parties (8)

AIC Developers (India) Pvt. Ltd. Petitioner Amar Dyeing Works Petitioner Annapoorna Industrial Corporation Petitioner Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Respondent Evinix Designs Concepts P Ltd. Petitioner Lt. Governor NCT of Delhi Respondent Rishyab Infratech Pvt. Ltd. Petitioner Pankaj Tandon Petitioner

Case Significance

M/S Rishyab Infratech Pvt. Ltd. vs Lt. Governor Nct Of Delhi & Anr is a Delhi High Court decision dated December 24, 2024 (citation: ik-64431286). Six connected writ petitions challenged land acquisition proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for DMRC metro projects. The petitioners contended that the acquisition had lapsed due to non-compliance with Section 11(A) requiring the award to be issued within the prescribed period. The court noted the petitioners had categorically stated they were not challenging the acquisition proceedings or notifications, and possession had already been handed over to DMRC pursuant to settlement. The bench comprised Justices Sachin Datta and Vibhu Bakhru. The judgment was delivered by Justice Sachin Datta.

Summary

Six connected writ petitions challenged land acquisition proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for DMRC metro projects. The petitioners contended that the acquisition had lapsed due to non-compliance with Section 11(A) requiring the award to be issued within the prescribed period. The court noted the petitioners had categorically stated they were not challenging the acquisition proceedings or notifications, and possession had already been handed over to DMRC pursuant to settlement. The petitions were dismissed as lacking merit.

What was the outcome of M/S Rishyab Infratech Pvt. Ltd. vs Lt. Governor Nct Of Delhi & Anr?

Six connected writ petitions challenged land acquisition proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for DMRC metro projects. The petitioners contended that the acquisition had lapsed due to non-...

Judgment

Read the full judgment on the official India Courts portal.

Read on Indian Kanoon

Source: Indian Kanoon (ik-64431286)