DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY versus KUSHAM JAIN AND ANOTHER

DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY versus KUSHAM JAIN AND ANOTHER

Since there was no compliance with statutory requirements under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for payment of compensation, and the compensatory deposit in court in 2013 was not on account of any contingency as provided under Section 31(2), the deeming provision in Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act applies and the land acquisition is deemed to have lapsed.

Parties
Appellant: Delhi Development Authority; Respondents: Kusham Jain and Another
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
31 August 2016
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal Against the Judgment and Order Dated 10.11.2014 of the High Court of Delhi in W. P. (c) No. 4232 of 2014
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Lapse of Land Acquisition Proceedings, Payment of Compensation, Retrospective Operation of Deeming Provisions
Land Acquisition Law Constitutional Law Lapse of Land Acquisition Proceedings Payment of Compensation Retrospective Operation of Deeming Provisions

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 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Delhi Development Authority

Appellant

Kusham Jain and Another

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal Against the Judgment and Order Dated 10.11.2014 of the High Court of Delhi in W. P. (c) No. 4232 of 2014

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether deposit of compensation in court in 2013 amounts to payment to land owner for the purpose of Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act
  2. 2 Whether the land acquisition proceedings in respect of the respondents’ land have lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act

Ratio Decidendi

Since there was no compliance with statutory requirements under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for payment of compensation, and the compensatory deposit in court in 2013 was not on account of any contingency as provided under Section 31(2), the deeming provision in Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act applies and the land acquisition is deemed to have lapsed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed without prejudice to the liberty of the appellant to initiate fresh proceedings for acquisition of the subject land under the 2013 Act within one year.
  • If no fresh acquisition proceedings are initiated within one year from the date of judgment, the appellant shall return the physical possession of the land to the original land owner.