DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY versus GODFREY PHILLIPS (I) LTD AND ORS.

DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY versus GODFREY PHILLIPS (I) LTD AND ORS.

Where the original vendor had not filed objections under Section 5-A and had acquiesced (including withdrawal of SLP), a subsequent purchaser cannot claim lapsing under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act; possession of the acquired land had been taken and compensation paid or deposited on behalf of the State, and deposits made by the purchaser after long delay based on now-disapproved precedents (Balbir Singh/Sudan Singh) cannot revive rights to declare lapse; therefore the High Court order declaring lapse was set aside and the deposit ordered to be refunded.

Parties
Appellant: Delhi Development Authority; Respondent: Godfrey Phillips (I) Ltd and Ors.
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
06 May 2022
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Final Judgment on Appeal
Outcome
Appeal allowed; High Court order set aside
Legal Topics
Lapse of Acquisition Proceedings Under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act, Effect of Possession and Payment/deposit of Compensation, Effect of Prior High Court and Supreme Court Precedents (balak Ram/balbir Singh/sudan Singh/abhey Ram/gurdip Singh Uban), Section 5 a Objections and Locus to Challenge Acquisition, Vesting of Title on Taking Possession Under Section 16 of the 1894 Act
Land Acquisition Property Law Administrative Law Lapse of Acquisition Proceedings Under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act Effect of Possession and Payment/deposit of Compensation Effect of Prior High Court and Supreme Court Precedents (balak Ram/balbir Singh/sudan Singh/abhey Ram/gurdip Singh Uban) Section 5 a Objections and Locus to Challenge Acquisition Vesting of Title on Taking Possession Under Section 16 of the 1894 Act

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

Parties

Delhi Development Authority

Appellant

Godfrey Phillips (I) Ltd and Ors.

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Final Judgment on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether acquisition proceedings lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013
  2. 2 Whether a purchaser (transferee) can claim lapse when the original vendor had not filed objections under Section 5-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894
  3. 3 Whether payment or deposit of compensation by/to parties or by the authority satisfies the requirement of 'paid' under Section 24(2)

Ratio Decidendi

Where the original vendor had not filed objections under Section 5-A and had acquiesced (including withdrawal of SLP), a subsequent purchaser cannot claim lapsing under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act; possession of the acquired land had been taken and compensation paid or deposited on behalf of the State, and deposits made by the purchaser after long delay based on now-disapproved precedents (Balbir Singh/Sudan Singh) cannot revive rights to declare lapse; therefore the High Court order declaring lapse was set aside and the deposit ordered to be refunded.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; High Court order set aside

Orders

  • The order dated 09.12.2016 of the High Court in W.P. (C) No. 6507 of 2014 is set aside.
  • The appellant (Delhi Development Authority) shall refund Rs.1661774 to the purchaser without any interest (deposit was a voluntary offer).