DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY versus RAJENDER SINGH & ORS.

DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY versus RAJENDER SINGH & ORS.

The Supreme Court held that Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act requires both non-possession and non-payment for deemed lapse; because the Delhi Development Authority had taken possession and compensation was sent in RD, one of the required conditions was not satisfied and therefore there is no deemed lapse of acquisition. The High Court's reliance on Pune Municipal Corporation to declare deemed lapse solely because compensation was not paid in the manner known to law was incorrect and the High Court's order was set aside.

Parties
Appellant: Delhi Development Authority; Respondent: Rajender Singh & Ors.
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
24 February 2023
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal Decided by Supreme Court
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, Deemed Lapse of Acquisition, Possession Vs Payment of Compensation, Deposit of Compensation in Revenue Deposit (rd) or Court, Precedent and Overruling
Land Acquisition Property Law Statutory Interpretation Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 Deemed Lapse of Acquisition Possession Vs Payment of Compensation Deposit of Compensation in Revenue Deposit (rd) or Court Precedent and Overruling

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 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Delhi Development Authority

Appellant

Rajender Singh & Ors.

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal Decided by Supreme Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether acquisition is deemed to have lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act where compensation was not paid in the manner known to law though compensation was sent in RD
  2. 2 Whether possession having been taken precludes deemed lapse under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act
  3. 3 Whether deposit of compensation in court is required to avoid deemed lapse under Section 24(2)

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court held that Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act requires both non-possession and non-payment for deemed lapse; because the Delhi Development Authority had taken possession and compensation was sent in RD, one of the required conditions was not satisfied and therefore there is no deemed lapse of acquisition. The High Court's reliance on Pune Municipal Corporation to declare deemed lapse solely because compensation was not paid in the manner known to law was incorrect and the High Court's order was set aside.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Impugned judgment and order of the High Court dated 01.08.2017 in WP (C) No.3561 of 2015 quashed and set aside
  • There shall be no deemed lapse of the acquisition with respect to the lands in question under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act