Supreme Court Upholds Delhi Land Acquisition, Overturns High Court Ruling

The Supreme Court of India recently ruled in the case of Delhi Development Authority vs. Chandermal & Ors., overturning the Delhi High Court’s decision that had declared the land acquisition proceedings as lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. The Court reaffirmed that if possession was taken and compensation was deposited, the acquisition remains valid, even if landowners did not receive the payment.

The ruling clarifies the interpretation of Section 24(2) and ensures that large-scale urban development projects are not derailed due to procedural lapses in compensation disbursement.

Background of the Case

The dispute arose when Chandermal & Ors. challenged the land acquisition for the Delhi Development Authority (DDA), arguing that compensation had not been paid to them, leading to the lapsing of acquisition under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act.

The key timeline of events was as follows:

1964: A notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, was issued.
December 10, 1997: The award for compensation was declared.
May 26, 1998: Possession of the acquired land was taken and handed over to the DDA.
October 3, 2018: The Delhi High Court ruled that since compensation was not paid directly to the landowners, the acquisition had lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act.
December 15, 2022: The Supreme Court overturned the High Court’s decision.

Arguments by the Appellants (DDA and Govt. of NCT of Delhi)

The DDA and the Government of NCT of Delhi contended:

The High Court erroneously ruled in favor of the landowners despite the compensation being deposited with the Land Acquisition Collector.
Under the Indore Development Authority vs. Manoharlal (2020) judgment, compensation is considered paid if deposited with the relevant authority.
The land acquisition proceedings had been completed as possession was taken and compensation had been released.

Arguments by the Respondents (Landowners)

The landowners countered:

Compensation was not paid to them personally, making the acquisition invalid under Section 24(2).
Under the 2013 Act, if compensation is not received by the landowners, acquisition proceedings lapse.
The High Court correctly ruled in their favor, applying the principles of fairness and transparency.

Supreme Court’s Judgment

The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the DDA, holding:

Possession was taken and compensation was deposited, so the acquisition did not lapse.
“Once possession has been taken, there is no lapse under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act.”
The High Court misinterpreted the law by treating non-payment to landowners as a reason for lapsing acquisition.
The ruling in Indore Development Authority vs. Manoharlal (2020) clearly established that deposit with the relevant authority suffices.

Key Precedents Cited

The Supreme Court referred to multiple landmark cases, including:

Indore Development Authority vs. Manoharlal (2020): Established that compensation deposit with the concerned department is valid.
Pune Municipal Corporation vs. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki (2014): Overruled, stating that non-payment to landowners does not lapse acquisition.
Sree Balaji Nagar Residential Assn. vs. State of Tamil Nadu (2015): Clarified that authorities must ensure transparency in land acquisitions.

Impact of the Judgment

This Supreme Court ruling has significant implications:

Ensures land acquisition stability: Prevents projects from being derailed due to procedural delays in compensation disbursement.
Clarifies compensation rules: Confirms that payment to the Land and Building Department meets legal requirements.
Protects urban development: Supports infrastructure projects by securing acquired lands against retroactive claims.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s ruling in Delhi Development Authority vs. Chandermal & Ors. strengthens land acquisition laws by ensuring that once possession is taken and compensation is deposited, acquisition remains valid. The judgment prevents landowners from exploiting procedural delays to reclaim acquired lands.

The verdict sets an important precedent for future land acquisition cases, providing clarity on Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act and upholding the integrity of large-scale development projects.

Petitioner Name: Delhi Development Authority & Govt. of NCT of Delhi.
Respondent Name: Chandermal & Ors..
Judgment By: Justice M.R. Shah, Justice S. Ravindra Bhat.
Place Of Incident: Delhi.
Judgment Date: 15-12-2022.

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-chandermal-&-ors.-supreme-court-of-india-judgment-dated-15-12-2022.pdf

Directly Download Judgment: Directly download this Judgment

See all petitions in Property Disputes
See all petitions in Damages and Compensation
See all petitions in Judgment by Mukeshkumar Rasikbhai Shah
See all petitions in Judgment by S Ravindra Bhat
See all petitions in allowed
See all petitions in Quashed
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments December 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