DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY versus CHANDERMAL & ORS.

DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY versus CHANDERMAL & ORS.

Where possession of the subject land was taken and handed over to DDA on 26.05.1998 and the respondents did not earlier challenge the lawfulness of that possession, the acquisition cannot be held to have deemed to have lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act merely because compensation was not tendered; the High Court's contrary conclusion was inconsistent with the Constitution Bench decision in Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal, and is set aside.

Parties
Appellant: Delhi Development Authority; Appellant: Government of NCT of Delhi; Respondent: Chandermal & Ors.
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
15 December 2022
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From High Court
Outcome
Appeal allowed; impugned High Court judgment and order set aside
Legal Topics
Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, Possession and Tender of Compensation, Deemed Lapse of Acquisition, Vesting of Land Upon Taking Possession
Land Acquisition Administrative Law Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 Possession and Tender of Compensation Deemed Lapse of Acquisition Vesting of Land Upon Taking Possession

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 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Delhi Development Authority

Appellant

Government of NCT of Delhi

Appellant

Chandermal & Ors.

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From High Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether acquisition is deemed to have lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013 where possession was taken but compensation was not tendered
  2. 2 Whether a possession certificate that does not expressly record taking over by the Collector invalidates the taking of possession under the 1894 Act
  3. 3 Whether earlier Supreme Court decisions (Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal) govern the interpretation of Section 24(2)

Ratio Decidendi

Where possession of the subject land was taken and handed over to DDA on 26.05.1998 and the respondents did not earlier challenge the lawfulness of that possession, the acquisition cannot be held to have deemed to have lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act merely because compensation was not tendered; the High Court's contrary conclusion was inconsistent with the Constitution Bench decision in Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal, and is set aside.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; impugned High Court judgment and order set aside

Orders

  • Impugned judgment and order dated 03.10.2018 quashed and set aside
  • Appeals allowed