Appellate Court Can Allow Additional Evidence To Ensure Fair Adjudication Even If Not Produced In Trial: Madhya Pradesh High Court Police Can Freeze Bank Accounts Under Section 106 BNSS Upon Suspicion Of 'Proceeds Of Crime': Punjab & Haryana High Court 'No Penalty For Monthly MGQ Shortfall If Annual Target Met': Supreme Court Upholds Quashing Of Excise Department Demands For Liquor Licensees 'Murder Went Unavenged, But Courts Cannot Convict On Mere Assumptions': Supreme Court Acquits Accused In 1988 Murder Case, Quashes High Court's Remit Order 'NCSC Cannot Pass Mandatory Adjudicatory Orders Directing Payment Of Arrears': Supreme Court Clarifies Commission's Powers Under Article 338 "'Cannot Present Fait Accompli': Supreme Court Upholds Denial Of NOC To Airman For Skipping Prior Permission To Apply For Civil Post" Supreme Court Upholds 2017 Notification For Ex Post Facto Environmental Clearances, Quashes 2021 Office Memorandum As Impermissible Executive Overreach Workman Fails To Prove 240 Days Continuous Work; Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Denial Of Reinstatement For "Abandonment Of Service" Party Cannot Take Contradictory Stands In Same Case, Admissions In Pleadings Bind Them Under Order XII Rule 6 CPC: Telangana High Court Delayed Recovery Of Weapon From Open Space Casts Serious Doubt On Prosecution Story: Madhya Pradesh High Court Acquits Murder Convicts Procedural Irregularities By Public Servants Serve As Circumstantial Evidence Of Conspiracy In Corruption Cases: Kerala High Court Blaming Previous Counsel For Omission Does Not Satisfy 'Due Diligence' Test To Amend Plaint After Trial Commences: Punjab & Haryana High Court Muslim Man's Second Marriage Under Special Marriage Act Void Despite Personal Law Permitting Bigamy: Karnataka High Court Suppression Of Material Facts Regarding Criminal Antecedents Disentitles Accused To Discretionary Relief Of Bail: Orissa High Court Section 311 CrPC | Delay Or Absence Of Examination-In-Chief No Bar To Summon Material Witnesses: Allahabad High Court Revenue Authorities Lack Jurisdiction To Declare Genuineness Of Wills Or Validity Of Settlement Deeds; Parties Must Approach Civil Court: Andhra Pradesh High Court Demand Of Bribe Is Sine Qua Non For Conviction Under PC Act, Mere Recovery Of Tainted Money Not Enough: Bombay High Court Title And Ownership Irrelevant In Suit Under Section 6 Specific Relief Act; Plaint Liable To Be Rejected If Filed Beyond Six Months: Delhi High Court Receipt Of Pension By Widow Can Be Considered To Determine 'Just Compensation' But Not To Deprive Claimants Of Award: Calcutta High Court FSL Report Lacking Scientific Criteria And Data Is Inadmissible In Evidence: Allahabad High Court Issues Directives For Testing Viscera Standard Of Proof In Railway Accident Claims Is Preponderance Of Probabilities, Not Beyond Reasonable Doubt: Gujarat High Court No Second Statutory Appeal Lies Against Conviction By Appellate Court Reversing Acquittal; Revision Is Sole Remedy: Supreme Court Wives' Property Is Their Own, Not Husband's: Supreme Court REJECTS High Court's Succession Formula; Restores Clarity For Christian Inheritance

High Court Orders Expedited Acquisition and Compensation for Unlawfully Dispossessed Landowner in Delhi

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


The Delhi High Court, in a landmark judgment, has directed the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) to expedite the acquisition process and compensate a landowner who was unlawfully dispossessed of his property. The case, involving a dispute over land in Village Bharthal, saw the petitioner seeking redress for land used by DDA for constructing a road and footpath without proper acquisition.

Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora, in her judgment, emphasized the need for swift legal redressal in cases of unlawful dispossession. “Depriving the appellants of their immovable properties was a clear violation of Article 21 of the Constitution,” the Judge noted, underscoring the gravity of the situation.

The petitioner, the recorded owner of the land, had sought the court’s intervention after DDA constructed a boundary wall and road on the land without due process. While DDA admitted to the mistake and expressed willingness to compensate as per the new Act of 2013, the petitioner demanded an alternate piece of land in lieu of the one used.

The Court, after careful consideration, denied the request for alternate land allotment, citing the lack of a statutory right for such a claim under the prevailing laws. The judgment stressed that the lawful course of action was compensation, not land allotment. “The appellants have been seriously discriminated against... This kind of discrimination not only breeds corruption, but also disrespect for governance,” Justice Arora observed, highlighting the broader implications of such cases.

The Court’s directive for expedited acquisition under the new Act of 2013 and immediate compensation represents a significant step in addressing grievances related to unlawful land dispossession. It also reinforces the legal obligation of state authorities to adhere to due process and provide just compensation.

Date of Decision: 08.12.2023.

VINOD RAJORIA VS DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND ORS.

 

Latest Legal News