DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY versus KRISHAN LAL ARORA & ORS.

DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY versus KRISHAN LAL ARORA & ORS.

The High Court's order deeming acquisition lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act solely because compensation had not been paid was contrary to the Constitution Bench decision in Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal; where possession has been taken, Section 24(2) does not cause a deemed lapse even if compensation has not been paid, and therefore the High Court's order was quashed and set aside.

Parties
Appellant: Delhi Development Authority; Respondent: Krishan Lal Arora & Ors.
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
02 November 2022
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Judgment (final Judgment)
Outcome
Appeal allowed; impugned High Court judgment and order quashed and set aside; original writ petition dismissed.
Legal Topics
Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, Deemed Lapse of Land Acquisition Proceedings, Possession Versus Payment of Compensation, Interpretation of Proviso to Section 24(2)
Land Acquisition Administrative Law Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 Deemed Lapse of Land Acquisition Proceedings Possession Versus Payment of Compensation Interpretation of Proviso to Section 24(2)

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 6 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Delhi Development Authority

Appellant

Krishan Lal Arora & Ors.

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Judgment (final Judgment)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether acquisition lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act where possession had been taken but compensation had not been paid
  2. 2 Whether deposit of compensation in court or tendering/refusal affects lapse under Section 24(2)
  3. 3 Whether the High Court's finding was contrary to the Constitution Bench decision in Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal

Ratio Decidendi

The High Court's order deeming acquisition lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act solely because compensation had not been paid was contrary to the Constitution Bench decision in Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal; where possession has been taken, Section 24(2) does not cause a deemed lapse even if compensation has not been paid, and therefore the High Court's order 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 of the High Court dated 20.07.2018 is quashed and set aside
  • Original writ petition preferred by the original writ petitioner stands dismissed