"Party Autonomy is the Backbone of Arbitration: Bombay High Court Upholds Sole Arbitrator Appointment Despite Party’s Attempts to Frustrate Arbitration Proceedings    |     Reasonable Doubt Arising from Sole Testimony in Absence of Corroboration, Power Cut Compounded Identification Difficulties: Supreme Court Acquits Appellants in Murder Case    |     ED Can Investigate Without FIRs: PH High Court Affirms PMLA’s Broad Powers    |     Accident Claim | Contributory Negligence Cannot Be Vicariously Attributed to Passengers: Supreme Court    |     Default Bail | Indefeasible Right to Bail Prevails: Allahabad High Court Faults Special Judge for Delayed Extension of Investigation    |     “Habitual Offenders Cannot Satisfy Bail Conditions Under NDPS Act”: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Bail to Accused with Extensive Criminal Record    |     Delhi High Court Denies Substitution for Son Due to 'Gross Unexplained Delay' of Over Six Years in Trademark Suit    |     Section 4B of the Tenancy Act Cannot Override Land Exemptions for Public Development: Bombay High Court    |     Suspicion, However High, Is Not a Substitute for Proof: Calcutta High Court Orders Reinstatement of Coast Guard Officer Dismissed on Suspicion of Forgery    |     Age Not Conclusively Proven, Prosecutrix Found to be a Consenting Party: Chhattisgarh High Court Acquits Accused in POCSO Case    |     'Company's Absence in Prosecution Renders Case Void': Himachal High Court Quashes Complaint Against Pharma Directors    |     Preventive Detention Cannot Sacrifice Personal Liberty on Mere Allegations: J&K High Court Quashes Preventive Detention of Local Journalist    |     J.J. Act | Accused's Age at Offense Critical - Juvenility Must Be Addressed: Kerala High Court Directs Special Court to Reframe Charges in POCSO Case    |     Foreign Laws Must Be Proved Like Facts: Delhi HC Grants Bail in Cryptocurrency Money Laundering Case    |    

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.                  

Similar News