DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY versus ASHA JAIN & ORS.

DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY versus ASHA JAIN & ORS.

The High Court's declaration of deemed lapse under Section 24(2) was set aside because possession of the land had been taken in 2005 and under the Constitution Bench ruling in Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal (2020) Section 24(2) operates only where neither possession has been taken nor compensation paid for five years prior to 1-1-2014; additionally the writ petitioner, claiming under an Agreement to Sell (a subsequent purchaser), had no right to seek declaration of lapse.

Parties
Appellant: DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY; Respondent: ASHA JAIN & ORS.
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
09 November 2022
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal No. 8088 of 2022 / Appeal From High Court Judgment
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, Lapse of Acquisition Proceedings, Possession Versus Payment of Compensation, Rights of Subsequent Purchaser
Land Acquisition Property Law Administrative Law Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 Lapse of Acquisition Proceedings Possession Versus Payment of Compensation Rights of Subsequent Purchaser

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 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

Appellant

ASHA JAIN & ORS.

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal No. 8088 of 2022 / Appeal From High Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether acquisition is deemed to have lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013
  2. 2 Whether possession had been taken or compensation paid such that Section 24(2) does not operate to deem lapse
  3. 3 Whether a subsequent purchaser (claiming under an Agreement to Sell) can claim lapse of acquisition proceedings

Ratio Decidendi

The High Court's declaration of deemed lapse under Section 24(2) was set aside because possession of the land had been taken in 2005 and under the Constitution Bench ruling in Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal (2020) Section 24(2) operates only where neither possession has been taken nor compensation paid for five years prior to 1-1-2014; additionally the writ petitioner, claiming under an Agreement to Sell (a subsequent purchaser), had no right to seek declaration of lapse.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Impugned High Court judgment and order dated 08.08.2017 quashed and set aside
  • Writ Petition (C) No. 2987 of 2016 dismissed