DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY versus NARVADA DEVI & ORS.

DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY versus NARVADA DEVI & ORS.

Applying the Constitution Bench ruling in Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal, the Court held that Section 24(2) results in deemed lapse only where neither possession nor payment occurred for five years prior to the 2013 Act; because DDA had tendered/released compensation and had taken possession of a substantial area and the remaining was under illegal occupation, the High Court's declaration of lapse was contrary to that precedent and unsustainable; therefore respondent was not entitled to declaration of lapse or compensation under the 2013 Act.

Parties
Appellant: DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY; Respondent: NARVADA DEVI & ORS.
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
09 February 2023
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Final Judgment of Supreme Court
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act, Lapsing of Acquisition Proceedings, Possession Versus Payment of Compensation, Tendering of Compensation Under Section 31(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, Effect of Interim Orders in Computing Five Year Period
Land Acquisition Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act Lapsing of Acquisition Proceedings Possession Versus Payment of Compensation Tendering of Compensation Under Section 31(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 Effect of Interim Orders in Computing Five Year Period

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 5 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

Appellant

NARVADA DEVI & ORS.

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Final Judgment of Supreme Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether acquisition proceedings are deemed to have lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act where neither physical possession has been taken nor compensation tendered prior to 1-1-2014
  2. 2 Whether tendering/receipt/deposit of compensation or taking of possession prevents lapse under Section 24(2)

Ratio Decidendi

Applying the Constitution Bench ruling in Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal, the Court held that Section 24(2) results in deemed lapse only where neither possession nor payment occurred for five years prior to the 2013 Act; because DDA had tendered/released compensation and had taken possession of a substantial area and the remaining was under illegal occupation, the High Court's declaration of lapse was contrary to that precedent and unsustainable; therefore respondent was not entitled to declaration of lapse or compensation under the 2013 Act.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Impugned judgment and order of the High Court dated 10.07.2018 quashed and set aside
  • Writ Petition (C) No. 3383 of 2016 dismissed