DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY versus TEJPAL & ORS.

DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY versus TEJPAL & ORS.

The Court held that (a) subsequent change of law occurring after expiry of the limitation period is not a sufficient cause to condone delay, except where the lis was pending before the Court and not finally adjudicated; (b) government entities are not entitled to automatic or mechanical leeway—bona fides and diligence must be shown; (c) COVID-19 extension orders benefit only those whose period of limitation expired between 15.03.2020 and 28.02.2022; (d) allegations of suppression of material facts, if shown prima facie, can justify condonation and require fact-finding; and (e) on balancing public interest and private rights in the unique circumstances of these consolidated matters the...

Parties
Appellant: Delhi Development Authority; Appellant: Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi; Appellant: Land Acquisition Collector (LAC) / GNCTD Land and Building Department; Appellant: Delhi State Industrial and Infrastructure Development Corporation (DSIIDC); Appellant: East Delhi Municipal Corporation; Appellant: Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Ltd.; Respondents / Landowners: Tejpal & Ors.
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
17 May 2024
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal (arising From Special Leave Petitions) / Final Judgment of the Supreme Court on Condonation of Delay and Disposition of Multiple Slps/civil Appeals
Outcome
Appeals disposed of in terms of the judgment: delay condoned in the majority of listed matters; certain High Court orders set aside and writ petitions restored for fact-finding; some matters de-tagged and listed separately; other matters dismissed or rendered infructuous as per lists and directions.
Legal Topics
Section 24(2) RFACTR Act, 2013, Condonation of Delay (limitation Act, 1963 S.5), Subsequent Change/overruling of Precedent, Public Interest, Suppression of Facts/fraud (limitation Act S.17), COVID 19 Limitation Extension (in Re: Cognizance for Extension of Limitation), Exercise of Article 142 Powers
Land Acquisition Limitation Administrative Law Constitutional Law Section 24(2) RFACTR Act, 2013 Condonation of Delay (limitation Act, 1963 S.5) Subsequent Change/overruling of Precedent Public Interest +3 more

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 4 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Delhi Development Authority

Appellant

Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi

Appellant

Land Acquisition Collector (LAC) / GNCTD Land and Building Department

Appellant

Delhi State Industrial and Infrastructure Development Corporation (DSIIDC)

Appellant

East Delhi Municipal Corporation

Appellant

Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Ltd.

Appellant

Tejpal & Ors.

Respondents / Landowners

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal (arising From Special Leave Petitions) / Final Judgment of the Supreme Court on Condonation of Delay and Disposition of Multiple Slps/civil Appeals

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether delay in filing SLPs/appeals by government entities could be condoned on the ground of subsequent change of law (Shailendra / Manoharlal)
  2. 2 Whether public interest, suppression of facts by landowners, COVID-19 limitation orders, or leeway to government entities constitute sufficient cause under Section 5 Limitation Act
  3. 3 Interpretation and retrospective/prospective effect of judgments re s.24(2) of the 2013 Act

Ratio Decidendi

The Court held that (a) subsequent change of law occurring after expiry of the limitation period is not a sufficient cause to condone delay, except where the lis was pending before the Court and not finally adjudicated; (b) government entities are not entitled to automatic or mechanical leeway—bona fides and diligence must be shown; (c) COVID-19 extension orders benefit only those whose period of limitation expired between 15.03.2020 and 28.02.2022; (d) allegations of suppression of material facts, if shown prima facie, can justify condonation and require fact-finding; and (e) on balancing public interest and private rights in the unique circumstances of these consolidated matters the...

Court Disposition

Appeals disposed of in terms of the judgment: delay condoned in the majority of listed matters; certain High Court orders set aside and writ petitions restored for fact-finding; some matters de-tagged and listed separately; other matters dismissed or rendered infructuous as per lists and directions.

Orders

  • Delay condoned in these matters except those in Lists B, C.2, D.2 and E.1 as specified in the judgment
  • Leave granted in the listed SLPs except those in List-B, List-D.2 and List-E.1