Deals & Matter

Delhi Development Authority vs. Tejpal (Supreme Court, 2024)

Commercial Arbitration

Delhi Development Authority vs. Tejpal (Supreme Court, 2024)
  • O.M.P. (I) (COMM.) 349/2022
  • 29 November 2022
  • Delhi High Court

Issue / Background

The case revolves around the acquisition of land by the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The respondent, Tejpal, challenged the acquisition proceedings on the grounds that possession of the land was never taken and compensation was not paid. He sought the benefit of Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (2013 Act).

Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act provides that if land acquired under the 1894 Act has not been taken into possession and compensation has not been paid for five years or more prior to January 1, 2014, then the acquisition lapses, and the landowner retains rights over the land.
Tejpal argued that both conditions non-payment of compensation and non-taking of possession were satisfied, making the acquisition invalid.

The central issue before the Supreme Court was whether the acquisition had lapsed under Section 24(2) and whether Tejpal’s claim of possession and compensation was substantiated.

Appellant’s Side (Delhi Development Authority – DDA)

The DDA, as the appellant, contested Tejpal’s claims on the following grounds:

1. Possession was already taken
  1. The State argued that the disciplinary proceedings were initiated strictly in accordance with the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules (CCS (CCA) Rules).
  2. As the employer, the Union of India had the authority and responsibility to hold its officers accountable for misconduct.
2. Compensation was tendered or deposited
  1. The DDA claimed that compensation had either been disbursed to the landowner or deposited with the competent authority (such as the treasury or reference court).
  2. It argued that refusal or failure of the landowner to collect compensation does not make the acquisition lapse.
3. Strict interpretation of Section 24(2)
  1. The appellant relied on precedents such as Indore Development Authority vs. Manoharlal (2020, Constitution Bench), which clarified that for lapse under Section 24(2), both conditions must be cumulatively satisfied—that is, possession not taken and compensation not paid.
  2. If either possession has been taken or compensation has been paid/deposited, the acquisition does not lapse.
4. Precedential binding
  1. DDA emphasized that the Supreme Court has consistently upheld that acquisition proceedings cannot be easily set aside, given their public purpose and the consequences for planned urban development.

Deals & Matter Corner

The Delhi High Court restrained DTIDC from

Delhi High Court appeal challenges the disputed

View More

Articles & Publications

“We’ll need a national AI governance framework

The amendments come in response to the

View More
Blogs
Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority of India

The insurance sector is the unsung hero of financial

Insurance regulatory

In India, no business in the insurance

View More

Respondent’s Side (Tejpal)

Possession never taken

  1. He argued that despite the DDA’s claim of preparing a possession memorandum, he continued to occupy and cultivate the land.
  2. According to him, “symbolic” possession recorded on paper cannot substitute “actual physical possession.” The absence of eviction or physical takeover invalidated the acquisition.

Compensation unpaid

  1. Tejpal asserted that no compensation was paid to him, nor was it effectively deposited in a manner that he could access.
  2. He claimed the statutory obligation under the 1894 Act was not fulfilled, and thus Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act applied squarely to his case.

Reliance on equity and legislative intent

  1. The respondent argued that the purpose of Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act was to provide relief to landowners who were deprived of both possession and compensation for prolonged periods.
  2. He emphasized that since neither possession was taken nor compensation paid for years, equity demanded that the acquisition lapse and his land rights be restored.

Challenge to technical reliance on possession memo

  1. Tejpal contended that mere preparation of an administrative document, without actual dispossession, cannot extinguish the landowner’s rights.
  2. He argued that judicial precedents recognize the primacy of physical possession in determining validity.

Court’s Observations

The Supreme Court carefully analyzed the submissions of both sides, drawing heavily from constitutional bench rulings on Section 24(2). Its key observations were:

  • On possession
  1. The Court reiterated that possession taken through lawful possession proceedings (e.g., drawing up of a possession memo and handing over to the beneficiary agency) constitutes valid possession in law, even if the landowner continues to occupy the land informally.
  2. The Court noted that physical occupation by the landowner does not override the fact that the land has vested in the State once possession is recorded as per legal procedure.
  • On compensation
  1. The Court emphasized that “payment” under the 1894 Act includes deposit in the treasury or court, not merely direct payment to the landowner.
  2. If compensation has been tendered but refused by the landowner, or validly deposited, the statutory obligation is discharged.
  • Interpretation of Section 24(2)
  1. The Court relied on Indore Development Authority vs. Manoharlal (2020), which clarified that for lapse to occur, both conditions—(a) compensation not paid and (b) possession not taken must be satisfied simultaneously.
  2. If either possession is taken or compensation is paid/deposited, the acquisition stands and does not lapse.
  • On respondent’s claims
  1. The Court found that Tejpal’s argument of continued physical occupation did not invalidate the DDA’s claim of possession through legal documentation.
  2. Similarly, since compensation was duly deposited, his argument of non-payment did not hold.
  • Public purpose consideration
  1. The Court stressed that urban development projects cannot be derailed lightly, as large-scale planned development hinges on acquisition finality.
  2. It emphasized judicial restraint in unsettling long-concluded acquisitions unless clear violations are demonstrated.

Court’s Decision

After weighing the evidence and legal precedents, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the appellant, Delhi Development Authority (DDA). The key elements of the decision were:

  • Acquisition has not lapsed
  1. The Court held that since possession was lawfully taken and compensation had been deposited, the acquisition of Tejpal’s land did not lapse under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act.
  • Dismissal of respondent’s claim
  1. Tejpal’s plea seeking lapse of acquisition and restoration of ownership was rejected.
  • Reaffirmation of precedent
  1. The Court reaffirmed the principles laid down in Indore Development Authority vs. Manoharlal (2020) and subsequent judgments, providing consistency in interpretation of Section 24(2).
  • Clarity on symbolic vs. actual possession
  1. By recognizing possession through a possession memo as valid, the Court clarified that administrative acts of taking possession hold legal weight, reducing scope for disputes by landowners claiming continued occupation.

Deals and Matter

Disclaimer

This website is for informational purposes only and is not intended to advertise or solicit work as per the Bar Council of India rules. By accessing www.foresightlawoffices.com, you acknowledge that you are seeking information about Foresight Law voluntarily. Nothing on this site constitutes legal advice or creates a lawyer-client relationship. Foresight Law is not responsible for any actions taken based on the content here. External links do not imply endorsement. Please do not share confidential information via this website. For details, review our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

I Agree I Disagre

Scroll to Top