DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY versus RAMBIR AND ORS

DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY versus RAMBIR AND ORS

Applying the law in Indore Development Authority (2020), because possession of the land in question was taken in 2007 and handed over to the beneficiary department, the acquisition proceedings did not lapse under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act; accordingly the High Court's declaration of deemed lapse is quashed and set aside.

Parties
Appellant: Delhi Development Authority; Respondent: Rambir and Ors.
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
20 January 2023
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From the Judgment and Order of the High Court of Delhi in Writ Petition (c) No. 5441 of 2017
Outcome
Appeal allowed; impugned High Court judgment and order quashed and set aside.
Legal Topics
Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, Possession Versus Payment of Compensation, Deemed Lapse of Acquisition Proceedings, Overruling of Precedent (pune Municipal Corporation), Application of Indore Development Authority (2020)
Land Acquisition Statutory Interpretation Administrative Law Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 Possession Versus Payment of Compensation Deemed Lapse of Acquisition Proceedings Overruling of Precedent (pune Municipal Corporation) Application of Indore Development Authority (2020)

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 12 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Delhi Development Authority

Appellant

Rambir and Ors.

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From the Judgment and Order of the High Court of Delhi in Writ Petition (c) No. 5441 of 2017

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether acquisition proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 are deemed to have lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act where possession was taken but compensation was not paid
  2. 2 Whether tendering/deposit of compensation under Section 31 of the 1894 Act prevents lapse under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act
  3. 3 Whether the decision in Pune Municipal Corporation (2014) remains good law after Indore Development Authority (2020)

Ratio Decidendi

Applying the law in Indore Development Authority (2020), because possession of the land in question was taken in 2007 and handed over to the beneficiary department, the acquisition proceedings did not lapse under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act; accordingly the High Court's declaration of deemed lapse is quashed and set aside.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; impugned High Court judgment and order quashed and set aside.

Orders

  • Impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court is quashed and set aside
  • Present appeal allowed