VidhiSangh

Supreme Court of India · 24/02/2023

DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY versus RAJENDER SINGH & ORS.

[2023] 3 S.C.R. 7 · 2023 INSC 165

AI-generated headnote. Verify against the judgment before relying on it. Paragraph numbers refer to the judgment.

Summary

The Delhi High Court declared that an acquisition had lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act solely because compensation was not paid to the landowners in the manner known to law, relying on Pune Municipal Corporation, although the Delhi Development Authority's counter affidavit stated that possession was taken and handed to the beneficiary department on 23 September 1981 and the compensation sent to the revenue deposit owing to a dispute. The Supreme Court allowed the Authority's appeal: under the Constitution Bench decision in Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal, deemed lapse requires the twin conditions that possession was not taken and compensation was not tendered or paid, and if either is unsatisfied there is no lapse; the High Court's view was contrary to that law.

Issues

  1. Whether acquisition proceedings lapse under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 where possession was taken decades earlier but compensation was deposited in the revenue deposit rather than paid to the landowners.

Provisions considered

Held

Result

Appeal allowed without costs; Delhi High Court judgment dated 01.08.2017 in WP (C) No. 3561 of 2015 quashed and set aside; no deemed lapse of the acquisition under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act; pending applications disposed of.

Judgment PDF: Supreme Court of India, [2023] 3 S.C.R. 7.