Order XLI Rule 23A CPC | Re-Trial Necessary When Crucial Parties Impleaded In Appeal: Telangana High Court Cannot Freeze Entire Bank Account For Small Disputed Sums: Rajasthan High Court Issues Comprehensive Guidelines Against Indiscriminate Account Freezes In Cyber Crime Probes 187(3) BNSS | No Extension Of Investigation Time Without Notice To Accused: Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants Default Bail In NDPS Case Road Widening Under Master Plan Cannot Be Stalled For Formal Land Acquisition, Section 305 Permits Direct Removal Of Encroachments: Madhya Pradesh High Court P&H High Court Quashes Preventive Detention Over 45-Day Delay In Informing Detenu Of Right To Represent 'Sole Allegation Of Torture Cannot Stand Alone': Andhra Pradesh High Court Acquits Husband Under Section 498A IPC After Dowry Demand Disproved Seeking Corroboration To Victim's Testimony Amounts To Adding Insult To Injury: Bombay High Court Upholds Rape Conviction Offences Of Cheating & Criminal Breach Of Trust Cannot Coexist On Same Facts: Calcutta High Court Quashes FIR Over Commercial Contract Dispute "Accident Alone Is Not Proof": Delhi High Court Acquits Bus Driver In 2003 Road Fatality Case, Rules Mere Speeding Or Collision Insufficient For Section 304A IPC Mandate Of Regulations Must Be Read Into Public Notices: Kerala High Court Reverses Order Directing NMC To Reopen Portal For Medical College's PG Seat Hike Unproven 1946 Oral Sale And Subsequent School Gift Cannot Convey Valid Title Over Tribal Land: Orissa High Court Orders Compensation After 80 Years ED Can Probe Money Laundering In J&K Corruption Cases: J&K High Court Rules S. 5(1)(d) J&K PC Act Corresponds To Amended S. 7 Of Central PC Act Not Mere Lip Service: Supreme Court Quashes GST Notice Under Section 74 Lacking Foundational Facts Of Fraud Or Suppression Selling Manufactured Goods At Factory Premises Doesn't Turn 'Industrial' Land Into 'Commercial' For Stamp Duty: Supreme Court Supreme Court Orders All States To Form Dedicated SITs To Probe Fake Motor Accident Claims, Warns Insurance Top Brass Against Selective Referrals Port Trusts Not Immune From Customs Duty On Pilfered Goods: Supreme Court Upholds Notification Declaring Mumbai Port Trust As Custodian Under Section 45

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