Section 9 A&C Act Relief Available Until Award Is Actually Enforced, Even After It Becomes Enforceable: Telangana High Court Matrimonial Litigations Must Not Degenerate Into Contests Of Mutual Humiliation By Weaponising Private Images: Delhi High Court Unarmed Witnesses’ Inaction Against Armed Assailants Justified By Instinct Of Self-Preservation; Testimony Cannot Be Discarded: Allahabad High Court Ocular Evidence Outweighs Motive: Andhra Pradesh High Court Upholds Murder Conviction Based On Reliable Eyewitness Testimony Arrest Illegal If Written 'Grounds Of Arrest' Not Furnished To Accused; Communication Of Mere 'Reasons' Insufficient: Bombay High Court Absence Of Territorial Jurisdiction No Ground To Quash FIR At Threshold If Allegations Disclose Cognizable Offence: Calcutta High Court Proof Of Demand Is Sine Qua Non For PC Act Conviction; Voice Recordings Inadmissible Without Sec 65-B Certificate: Chhattisgarh HC Section 91 IEA | Disposition Of Immovable Property Cannot Be Proved By Oral Evidence If Written Document Not Produced: Delhi High Court NRC Legacy Data Extracts Inadmissible Without Section 65B Certificate; PAN Card & EPIC Not Proof Of Citizenship: Gauhati High Court Testimony Of Injured Witness Entitled To Great Weight; Minor Contradictions Due To Lapse Of Memory Cannot Discard Prosecution Case: Himachal Pradesh High Court Section 164 CrPC Statement Recorded Without Procedural Safeguards Or 'Cooling-Off' Period Not A Valid Confession: Jharkhand High Court Anticipatory Bail Cannot Be Denied Merely Because Investigation Is At A Nascent Stage If Custodial Interrogation Is Not Indispensable: Telangana High Court Actual Pay Drawn During Last 10 Months Must Be Basis For Pension Calculation, Regardless Of Notional Pay In Parent Bank: Punjab & Haryana High Court Kerala High Court Remands Teacher Seniority Dispute For Fresh Consideration To Verify If Senior Teacher Relinquished Promotion Claim Receipt Of DNA Report After Testimony Doesn't Automatically Confer Right To Recall Witness For Further Cross-Examination: Madhya Pradesh High Court Possession Of 'Bhang' Not An Offence Under NDPS Act, Specific Definition Excludes It: Jharkhand High Court Acquits Man Trial Court Cannot Reject Request For Handwriting Expert Merely Because Signatures Are On Photocopies: Punjab & Haryana High Court

Supreme Court rules in favor of Delhi Development Authority in land acquisition case

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


The Delhi Development Authority has filed an appeal against the High Court of Delhi's judgment in Writ Petition (C) No. 5061 of 2016. The High Court had declared the acquisition of the suit land measuring 3 bighas and 18 biswas in Khasra Nos. 10/20/2/1 (2-00) and 21/1 (1-18) and 17/1 (1-9) and land measuring 1 bigha and 9 biswas in Khasra No. 17/1/1 (2-01) as deemed to have lapsed by virtue of Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 ("Act, 2013").

The Delhi Development Authority appealed against the High Court's order, alleging that physical possession of the property/land bearing Khasra Nos. 17/1/1 min (1-18), 10/20/2/1 (2-0), 21/1 (1-18) was taken over by the government on 29.01.2010, and only remaining 3 biswa land comprised in Khasra No. 17/1/1 was not taken over due to built-up. The High Court had held that the compensation with respect to the lands in question had not been paid/tendered to the landowners, and therefore, the entire acquisition was deemed to have lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013.

The Delhi Development Authority argued that the possession of the other lands in question was taken by the government on 29.01.2010, and that taking over the physical possession by drawing the punchnama/possession proceedings was sufficient compliance. The Delhi Development Authority further contended that except for the remaining 3 biswa land comprised in Khasra No. 17/1/1, which was not taken over due to built-up, the acquisition with respect to the entire lands in question could not have been declared as deemed lapse under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013.

The Delhi Development Authority's argument was supported by the judgment of the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in Indore Development Authority Vs. Manoharlal and Ors. (2020) 8 SCC 129. The Constitution Bench had held that if compensation has been paid and possession has not been taken, or if possession has been taken and compensation has not been paid, then there is no deemed lapse of land acquisition proceedings under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013.

The Supreme Court, in its judgment, observed that the possession of the other lands in question was taken by the government on 29.01.2010, except for the remaining 3 biswa land comprised in Khasra No. 17/1/1, which was not taken over due to built-up. The Court held that the acquisition with respect to the entire lands in question could not have been declared as deemed lapse under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013. Therefore, the Court allowed the Delhi Development Authority's appeal and set aside the High Court's judgment.

Delhi Development Authority                            

Versus

Amit Jain & Ors.                  

Latest Legal News