Delhi Development Authority Land Acquisition: Supreme Court Upholds Government Possession

The case of Delhi Development Authority vs. Sunil Khatri & Others revolved around a land acquisition dispute in Chattarpur, Delhi. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Delhi Development Authority (DDA), holding that the land acquisition proceedings had not lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.

Background of the Case

The respondents owned 14 Bigha 8 Biswa of land in Khasra No. 1883, 1884, and 1885 in village Chattarpur, Delhi. The government initiated the acquisition process for planned development through notifications under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.

Notification under Section 4: Issued on November 25, 1980.
Notification under Section 6: Issued on multiple dates between 1985 and 1986.
Award Announcement: Declared on June 5, 1987.

Various landowners challenged the acquisition in multiple writ petitions before the Delhi High Court. Over the years, multiple judgments and stay orders affected the proceedings. The respondents argued that the acquisition had lapsed due to non-possession and non-payment of compensation under the 2013 Land Acquisition Act.

Key Legal Issues

Whether the acquisition proceedings lapsed due to non-possession under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act.
Whether prior High Court judgments quashing notifications applied to this case.
Whether the government’s inability to take possession was due to legal hurdles or administrative inaction.

Arguments Presented

Petitioner’s Arguments (Delhi Development Authority & Union of India)

The land acquisition process was legally completed before the 2013 Act came into force.
The DDA was prevented from taking possession due to multiple stay orders from the Delhi High Court.
The High Court had previously quashed notifications in unrelated cases, which could not be extended to the respondents’ land.
Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act does not apply if the failure to take possession was due to judicial intervention.

Respondents’ Arguments (Sunil Khatri & Others)

The government had failed to take possession for over 25 years, leading to automatic lapse under the 2013 Act.
Previous Delhi High Court judgments, such as in Balak Ram Gupta and Sudan Singh, had quashed similar notifications.
The landowners had never accepted compensation, further supporting the claim that acquisition had lapsed.
The delay in development showed that the land was not needed for public purposes.

Supreme Court’s Observations

The Supreme Court carefully examined the timeline of legal challenges and concluded:

Stay orders prevented possession: The DDA could not take possession due to repeated legal challenges and court orders.
Acquisition proceedings remained valid: The land acquisition did not lapse merely because physical possession was delayed due to litigation.
High Court orders did not apply: Prior cases quashing notifications applied only to specific writ petitioners and could not be generalized.
Section 24(2) exclusion: The Court ruled that time lost due to stay orders must be excluded when determining lapse under the 2013 Act.

Key Excerpts from the Judgment

The Supreme Court ruled:

“The period of five years had not lapsed before the commencement of the 2013 Act due to the interim orders. Therefore, the acquisition proceedings cannot be declared lapsed.”

The Court further observed:

“The acquisition was legally completed, and possession was only delayed due to judicial proceedings, which must be considered when applying Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act.”

Final Verdict

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and issued the following directives:

The order of the Delhi High Court declaring the acquisition as lapsed was set aside.
The writ petition filed by the landowners was dismissed.
The Delhi Development Authority was entitled to take possession and proceed with planned development.

Outcome: This ruling reinforces the principle that judicial delays should not be used to argue that land acquisitions have lapsed and ensures that large-scale urban planning projects are not derailed by prolonged litigation.

Petitioner Name: Delhi Development Authority.
Respondent Name: Sunil Khatri & Others.
Judgment By: Justice Hemant Gupta, Justice V. Ramasubramanian.
Place Of Incident: Chattarpur, Delhi.
Judgment Date: 19-05-2022.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: delhi-development-au-vs-sunil-khatri-&-other-supreme-court-of-india-judgment-dated-19-05-2022.pdf

Directly Download Judgment: Directly download this Judgment

See all petitions in Property Disputes
See all petitions in Landlord-Tenant Disputes
See all petitions in Judgment by Hemant Gupta
See all petitions in Judgment by V. Ramasubramanian
See all petitions in allowed
See all petitions in Quashed
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments May 2022
See all petitions in 2022 judgments

See all posts in Civil Cases Category
See all allowed petitions in Civil Cases Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Civil Cases Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Civil Cases Category