DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY versus DAYANAND & ORS.

DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY versus DAYANAND & ORS.

The Supreme Court held that the subsequent purchaser had no locus to claim lapsing under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act and, on the merits, because possession of the land was taken on 26.11.2012 and handed over to DDA, the twin conditions for deemed lapse under Section 24(2) (possession not taken and compensation not...

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Appellant: Delhi Development Authority; Respondent: Dayanand & Ors.
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
09 December 2022
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal No. 9005 of 2022 / Appeal Before the Supreme Court; Judgment and Final Disposal by the Supreme Court (appeal Allowed)
Outcome
Appeal allowed; impugned High Court judgment and order quashed and set aside; original writ petition dismissed.
Legal Topics
Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 Section 24(2), Possession and Payment of Compensation, Locus Standi of Subsequent Purchaser, Lapsing of Acquisition Proceedings
Land Acquisition Property Law Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 Section 24(2) Possession and Payment of Compensation Locus Standi of Subsequent Purchaser Lapsing of Acquisition Proceedings

Source-derived case record

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 11 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Delhi Development Authority

Appellant

Dayanand & Ors.

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal No. 9005 of 2022 / Appeal Before the Supreme Court; Judgment and Final Disposal by the Supreme Court (appeal Allowed)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a subsequent purchaser has locus to claim lapsing of acquisition proceedings under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act
  2. 2 Whether acquisition proceedings are deemed to have lapsed under Section 24(2) where possession was taken but compensation was not paid to the subsequent purchaser
  3. 3 Interpretation of the conjunctive/disjunctive effect of possession and payment of compensation in Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court held that the subsequent purchaser had no locus to claim lapsing under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act and, on the merits, because possession of the land was taken on 26.11.2012 and handed over to DDA, the twin conditions for deemed lapse under Section 24(2) (possession not taken and compensation not paid) were not satisfied; therefore the High Court's declaration of deemed lapse was unsustainable and was quashed and set aside.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; impugned High Court judgment and order quashed and set aside; original writ petition dismissed.

Orders

  • Impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court quashed and set aside.
  • Original writ petition dismissed.