DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY versus RAJAN SOOD & ORS.

DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY versus RAJAN SOOD & ORS.

The High Court's declaration that acquisition proceedings had lapsed under section 24(2) of the 2013 Act was unsustainable because the Constitution Bench decision in Indore Development Authority governs: lapse occurs only where neither possession was taken nor compensation was paid for five years before 1-1-2014; any interim stay operating at that time must be excluded from the five-year computation; having regard to the stay of 09.11.2011 and the appellants' case of possession and deposit/tendering, the High Court's finding of deemed lapse could not stand, and its order was quashed and set aside.

Parties
Appellant: Delhi Development Authority; Appellant: Government of NCT of Delhi; Respondent: Rajan Sood & Ors.
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
29 March 2022
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / On Appeal From High Court Judgment
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, Section 48 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, Deemed Lapse of Acquisition Proceedings, Possession and Payment/tendering of Compensation, Effect of Interim Court Orders on Limitation Period
Land Acquisition Statutory Interpretation Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 Section 48 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 Deemed Lapse of Acquisition Proceedings Possession and Payment/tendering of Compensation Effect of Interim Court Orders on Limitation 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 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Delhi Development Authority

Appellant

Government of NCT of Delhi

Appellant

Rajan Sood & Ors.

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / On Appeal From High Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether acquisition proceedings initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 are deemed to have lapsed under section 24(2) of the 2013 Act
  2. 2 Whether possession was taken and/or compensation was paid/tendered so as to prevent deemed lapse under section 24(2)
  3. 3 Whether earlier decision in Pune Municipal Corporation governs or has been overruled by Indore Development Authority

Ratio Decidendi

The High Court's declaration that acquisition proceedings had lapsed under section 24(2) of the 2013 Act was unsustainable because the Constitution Bench decision in Indore Development Authority governs: lapse occurs only where neither possession was taken nor compensation was paid for five years before 1-1-2014; any interim stay operating at that time must be excluded from the five-year computation; having regard to the stay of 09.11.2011 and the appellants' case of possession and deposit/tendering, the High Court's finding of deemed lapse could not stand, and its order was quashed and set aside.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Impugned High Court judgment and order dated 30.08.2016 declaring acquisition proceedings to be deemed to have lapsed under section 24(2) of the 2013 Act is quashed and set aside
  • No order as to costs