Patta Without SDM’s Prior Approval Is Void Ab Initio And Cannot Be Cancelled – It Never Legally Existed: Allahabad High Court Natural Guardian Means Legal Guardian: Custody Cannot Be Denied to Father Without Strong Reason: Orissa High Court Slams Family Court for Technical Rejection Affidavit Is Not a Caste Certificate: Madhya Pradesh High Court Sets Aside Zila Panchayat Member's Election for Failing Eligibility Under OBC Quota Confession Recorded By DCP Is Legally Valid Under KCOCA – Bengaluru DCP Holds Rank Equivalent To SP: Karnataka High Court Difference of Opinion Cannot End in Death: Jharkhand High Court Commutes Death Sentence in Maoist Ambush Killing SP Pakur and Five Policemen Mere Presence Of Beneficiary During Execution Does Not Cast Suspicion On Will: Delhi High Court Litigants Have No Right to Choose the Bench: Bombay High Court Rules Rule 3A Is Mandatory, Sends Writ to Kolhapur Testimony Must Be of Sterling Quality: Himachal Pradesh High Court Acquits Grandfather in Rape Case, Citing Unnatural Conduct and Infirm Evidence Cheating and Forgery Taint Even Legal Funds: No Safe Haven in Law for Laundered Money: Bombay High Court Final Maintenance Is Not Bound by Interim Orders – Section 125 Determination Must Be Based on Real Evidence: Delhi High Court Contempt | Power to Punish Carries Within It the Power to Forgive: Supreme Court Sets Aside Jail Term for Director Who Criticised Judges Over Stray Dog Orders Seizure and Attachment Are Not Twins: Supreme Court Holds Police Can Freeze Bank Accounts in PC Act Cases Using CrPC Section 102 IBC | Pre-Existing Dispute Must Be Real, Not Moonshine: Supreme Court Restores Insolvency Proceedings, Says Admission Cannot Be Rejected Based on Spurious Defence Summons Under FEMA Are Civil in Nature – Section 160 CrPC Has No Role to Play: Delhi High Court Denies Exemption to Woman Petitioner from Personal Appearance Before ED Clear Admission in Ledger Is Sufficient for Summary Judgment: Delhi High Court Decrees ₹16.77 Cr in Favour of MSME Supplier Mere Allegation Under SC/ST Act Doesn’t Bar Bail When No Public Abuse Is Made Out: Karnataka High Court Grants Anticipatory Bail in Caste Atrocity Case Consent Of Girl Aged Above 16 Is Legally Valid Under Pre-2013 Law: Karnataka High Court Sets Aside Rape Conviction Insurer Entitled to Recover Compensation from Owner When Driver Has No Licence or Fake Licence: Punjab & Haryana High Court Applies ‘Pay and Recover’ Doctrine Courts Cannot Rewrite Contracts Where Parties Have Failed to Clearly Define Property Terms: Punjab & Haryana High Court Dismisses Appeal in Specific Performance Suit Even Illegal Appointments Cannot Be Cancelled Without Hearing: Patna High Court Quashes Mass Termination Of Absorbed University Staff Renewal Is Not Extension Unless Terms Are Fixed in Same Deed: Bombay High Court Strikes Down ₹64.75 Lakh Stamp Duty Demand on Nine-Year Lease Fraud Vitiates All Solemn Acts—Appointment Void Ab Initio Even After 27 Years: Allahabad High Court Litigants Cannot Be Penalised For Attending Criminal Proceedings Listed On Same Day: Delhi High Court Restores Civil Suit Dismissed For Default Limited Permissive Use Confers No Right to Expand Trademark Beyond Agreed Territories: Bombay High Court Enforces Consent Decree in ‘New Indian Express’ Trademark Dispute Assam Rifles Not Entitled to Parity with Indian Army Merely Due to Similar Duties: Delhi High Court Dismisses Equal Pay Petition Conspiracy Cannot Be Presumed from Illicit Relationship: Bombay High Court Acquits Wife, Affirms Conviction of Paramour in Murder Case Bail in NDPS Commercial Quantity Cases Cannot Be Granted Without Satisfying Twin Conditions of Section 37: Delhi High Court Cancels Bail Orders Terming Them ‘Perversely Illegal’

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