NDPS | Mentioning FIR Number On Memos Before Registration Makes the Entire Recovery Suspect: Himachal Pradesh High Court MACT | Once Deceased Is Proven To Be Skilled Worker, Deputy Commissioner's Wage Notification Is Applicable: P&H HC Bank’s Technical Excuses Can’t Override Employee’s Right to Ex Gratia Under Old Circulars: Bombay High Court Slams Canara Bank’s Rejection of Claim Once Worker Files Affidavit of Unemployment, Burden Shifts to Employer to Prove Gainful Employment: Delhi High Court Grants 17B Relief Despite 12-Year Delay Specific Relief Act | Readiness and Willingness Must Be Real and Continuous — Plaintiffs Cannot Withhold Funds and Blame the Seller: Bombay High Court Even If Claim Is Styled Under Section 163A, It Can Be Treated Under Section 166 If Negligence Is Pleaded And Higher Compensation Is Claimed: Supreme Court When Cheating Flows from One Criminal Conspiracy, the Law Does Not Demand 1852 FIRs: Supreme Court Upholds Single FIR in Multi-Crore Cheating Case Initiating Multiple FIRs on Same Facts is Impermissible: Supreme Court Quashes Parallel FIRs and Grants Bail Protection in Refund Case Limitation Act | Quasi-Judicial Bodies Cannot Invoke Section 5 Principles Without Express Statutory Grant: Supreme Court Arbitration Act | Commencement of Proceedings Triggered by Notice Receipt, Not Section 11 Filing: Supreme Court Strong and Cogent Evidence Must Exist at the Threshold to Deny Bail Under Section 319 CrPC: Supreme Court Appellate Court Under Section 37 Cannot Sit in Appeal Over Arbitral Award on Merits: Supreme Court Affidavit Ratifying Power of Attorney Cannot Be Disowned Later: Supreme Court Orders Specific Performance Despite Earlier Revocation Claims No Law Empowers a Corporation to Haunt a Retiree: Supreme Court Quashes Post-Retirement Disciplinary Action for Want of Jurisdiction Mere Expectation of Higher Bids Can't Justify Cancelling a Valid Auction: Supreme Court Quashes GDA’s Arbitrary Rejection of Highest Bidder Prolonged Incarceration Without Trial Violates Article 21, Even in Grave Economic Offences: Supreme Court Grants Bail to Arvind Dham in ₹673 Crore PMLA Case Article 14 | ‘Rules of the Game Cannot Be Changed Midstream’: Supreme Court Quashes Punjab’s Modified Sports Quota Policy for MBBS Admissions Rules of the Game Cannot Be Changed Midway: Supreme Court Quashes Bihar’s Retrospective Recruitment Amendment "Imaginary Ghost" - Court Permits Karthigai Deepam at Thiruparankundram ‘Deepathoon’: Madras High Court 353 IPC | Continuing Prosecution Against Citizens Despite Statutory Findings of Police Atrocities Is Abuse of Process: Kerala High Court Court Cannot Compel Plaintiff to Continue Suit Where No Liberty to File Fresh Suit is Sought: Bombay High Court Claim for Demurrage is Not a Crystallized Debt—Only an Unadjudicated Right to Sue: Andhra Pradesh High Court Declared Foreign Nationals Have No Right to Reside in India: Gauhati High Court Upholds Expulsion of Bangladeshi Woman Without Requiring Deportation Protocols

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