DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY versus SURENDER SINGH & ORS.

DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY versus SURENDER SINGH & ORS.

Because the record showed possession of the lands had been taken and handed over to the acquiring authority, one of the conditions in Section 24(2) as interpreted by the Constitution Bench in Indore Development Authority (2020) was satisfied; therefore there was no deemed lapse of acquisition and the High Court orders setting aside the acquisitions were unsustainable.

Parties
Appellant: Delhi Development Authority; Respondents: Surender Singh & Ors.; Respondents: Ram Singh & Ors.; Respondents: Gyan Chand & Ors.; Respondents: Veena Jain & Ors.; Appellant: Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Anr.
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
11 April 2023
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From the High Court Judgment and Order Dated 16.10.2018
Outcome
Appeals allowed; High Court orders set aside; writ petitions dismissed.
Legal Topics
Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, Possession, Payment of Compensation, Deemed Lapse of Acquisition
Land Acquisition Compensation Statutory Interpretation Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 Possession Payment of Compensation Deemed Lapse of Acquisition

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 5 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Delhi Development Authority

Appellant

Surender Singh & Ors.

Respondents

Ram Singh & Ors.

Respondents

Gyan Chand & Ors.

Respondents

Veena Jain & Ors.

Respondents

Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Anr.

Appellant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From the High Court Judgment and Order Dated 16.10.2018

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether acquisition proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 deemed lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act where possession was taken but compensation was not paid
  2. 2 Whether taking possession alone or payment of compensation alone is sufficient to prevent deemed lapse under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act
  3. 3 Whether High Court orders relying on Pune Municipal Corporation (2014) remain good law in view of Indore Development Authority (2020)

Ratio Decidendi

Because the record showed possession of the lands had been taken and handed over to the acquiring authority, one of the conditions in Section 24(2) as interpreted by the Constitution Bench in Indore Development Authority (2020) was satisfied; therefore there was no deemed lapse of acquisition and the High Court orders setting aside the acquisitions were unsustainable.

Court Disposition

Appeals allowed; High Court orders set aside; writ petitions dismissed.

Orders

  • Appeals allowed
  • Orders of the High Court set aside