DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY versus DAMINI WADHWA & ORS.

DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY versus DAMINI WADHWA & ORS.

The High Court erred in declaring lapse of acquisition under Section 24(2) because the original writ petitioner was a subsequent purchaser claiming under a 2016 Agreement to Sell and thus lacked locus to claim lapse, and on merits possession of some parcels could not be taken and compensation could not be deposited due to pending litigation which precludes lapse under Section 24(2); accordingly the appeal is allowed, the High Court judgment is quashed and the writ petition is dismissed.

Parties
Appellant: Delhi Development Authority; Respondent / Original Writ Petitioner: Damini Wadhwa & Ors.
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
04 November 2022
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal No. 7962 of 2022 / On Appeal From Judgment and Order Dated 25.07.2017 of the High Court of Delhi in W.p. (c) No. 11735 of 2016
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Lapse of Acquisition Under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, Locus of Subsequent Purchaser, Effect of Pending Litigation on Possession and Deposit of Compensation
Land Acquisition Property Law Administrative Law Lapse of Acquisition Under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 Locus of Subsequent Purchaser Effect of Pending Litigation on Possession and Deposit of Compensation

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Delhi Development Authority

Appellant

Damini Wadhwa & Ors.

Respondent / Original Writ Petitioner

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal No. 7962 of 2022 / On Appeal From Judgment and Order Dated 25.07.2017 of the High Court of Delhi in W.p. (c) No. 11735 of 2016

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether acquisition is deemed to have lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013
  2. 2 Whether a person who acquires interest after initiation of acquisition proceedings (a subsequent purchaser) can claim lapse of acquisition proceedings
  3. 3 Whether inability to take possession or deposit/tender compensation due to pending litigation attracts Section 24(2)

Ratio Decidendi

The High Court erred in declaring lapse of acquisition under Section 24(2) because the original writ petitioner was a subsequent purchaser claiming under a 2016 Agreement to Sell and thus lacked locus to claim lapse, and on merits possession of some parcels could not be taken and compensation could not be deposited due to pending litigation which precludes lapse under Section 24(2); accordingly the appeal is allowed, the High Court judgment is quashed and the writ petition is dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Impugned judgment and order dated 25.07.2017 of the High Court quashed and set aside
  • Writ Petition (C) No. 11735 of 2016 dismissed