LegalFirms.in
LegalFirms.in Judgments · legalfirms.in/judgments/delhi-administration-thr-secretary-land-and-building-department-ors-vs-pawan-kumar-ors-20220506/ · Printed 07 Nov 2026
Civil · Reportable judgment

Delhi Administration Thr. Secretary, Land and Building Department & Ors. vs Pawan Kumar & Ors.

Court
Supreme Court of India
Date
6 May 2022
Case No.
Civil Appeal No. 3646 of 2022
Result
Allowed
Bench
Hemant Gupta, V. Ramasubramanian
Citation
[2022] 3 S.C.R. 791 : 2022 INSC 526
Supreme Court Reports [2022] 3 S.C.R. 791 : 2022 INSC 526
Headnote

Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – ss. 4 and 6 – Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 – s. 24(2) – Lapse of acquisition proceedings – Claim of – Respondent purchased property after the publication of notice u/ss.4 and 6 of the 1894 Act – Appellants had deposited compensation (amount payable to original owners) by filing application in the High Court since the deposit was not accepted by the Additional District Judge, on account of the Court closed for winter vacations – The High Court passed order recording that the same shall be treated as tendered to the Court of Additional District Judge on 30.12.2013 – Respondent filed writ petition before the High Court and claimed lapse of the proceedings under 2013 Act – The High Court declared the acquisition proceedings as lapsed in view of the provisions of s. 24(2) of the 2013 Act – Held: The respondent is a purchaser after the publication of notice u/ss. 4 and 6 of the Act and in fact after the award of the Land Acquisiti on Collector – Therefore, for the reasons recorded in the matter of Delhi Development Authority v. Godfrey Phillips (I) Ltd., subsequent purchaser is not entitled to claim lapsing of the proceedings under the 2013 Act – Further, the finding that compensation was not offered to the land owners and therefore the deposit in the Court cannot be regarded as payment of compensation is again not tenable in view of the judgment in Indore Development Authority v. Manohar Lal & Ors. – Therefore, the order passed by the High Court is not sustainable and same is set aside – Appeal allowed.

Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal & Ors (2020) 8 SCC 129; Delhi Development Authority v. Godfrey Phillips (I) Ltd. (Civil Appeal No. 3073 of 2022 decided by the Supreme Court) – relied on.

Chatro Devi v. Union of India & Ors. 2005 SCC Online Delhi 279 – referred to.

Gyanender Singh & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. W.P.(C) No. 1393 of 2014 decided by the Delhi High Court – referred to.

As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.

Full Judgment Text

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by HEMANT GUPTA, J. 1. The challenge in the present appeal is to a judgment and order dated 03.02.2015 whereby the writ petition filed by the respondents was allowed in view of the earlier judgment of the Delhi High Court in Gyanender Singh & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors1. 2. The respondent purchased the land measuring 7 Bigha 1 Biswa situated in village Sayoorpur, Tehsil- Mehrauli, New Delhi on 25.11.2011. The original land owner had filed a Writ Petition No. 2276 of 1985 challenging the notifications under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Ac
Full text available to subscribers
Subscribe to access complete judgment text, daily digests, and AI-powered legal research tools. For informational and research purposes only.
View Subscription Plans →
Annual plans from ₹1,599 + GST.

This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.

All SC judgments →