DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY versus SUNIL KHATRI & ORS.

DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY versus SUNIL KHATRI & ORS.

The Supreme Court held that the acquiring authority had been prevented, by interim orders and by quashing of notifications in related litigation, from taking possession or completing acquisition steps; accordingly the five-year period under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act had not run in a stay-free manner and the High Court erred in holding the acquisition proceedings had lapsed. The appeal was allowed and the High Court order set aside.

Parties
Appellant: Delhi Development Authority; Respondent: Sunil Khatri & Ors.
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
19 May 2022
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Judgment and Order Dated 22.12.2014 of the High Court of Delhi
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, Lapse of Acquisition Proceedings, Stay of Dispossession, Notification Under Section 4 and Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, Possession and Payment of Compensation
Land Acquisition Property Law Administrative Law Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 Lapse of Acquisition Proceedings Stay of Dispossession Notification Under Section 4 and Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 Possession and Payment of Compensation

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 3 Authorities cited 25 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Delhi Development Authority

Appellant

Sunil Khatri & Ors.

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Judgment and Order Dated 22.12.2014 of the High Court of Delhi

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether acquisition proceedings in respect of the land had lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act
  2. 2 Whether periods during which interim orders or quashed notifications prevented the acquiring authority from taking possession are to be excluded in computing the five year period under Section 24(2)
  3. 3 Whether notifications quashed by courts could be the basis for taking possession or for treating acquisition as complete

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court held that the acquiring authority had been prevented, by interim orders and by quashing of notifications in related litigation, from taking possession or completing acquisition steps; accordingly the five-year period under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act had not run in a stay-free manner and the High Court erred in holding the acquisition proceedings had lapsed. The appeal was allowed and the High Court order set aside.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Order dated 22.12.2014 of the High Court of Delhi set aside
  • Writ petition filed by the respondents dismissed