DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY versus ISLAMUDDIN & ORS.

Citation: [2016] 8 S.C.R. 729 · Decided: 29-11-2016 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: KURIAN JOSEPH · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2016] 8 S.C.R. 729 
DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY 
v. 
ISLAMUDDJN & ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 11826 of2016 etc.) 
NOVEMBER 29, 2016 
[KURIAN JOSEPH AND R. F. NARIMAN, JJ.] 
Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land 
Acquisition, Rehabilitation, Resettlement Act, 2013 - s. 24(2) -
Acquisition proceedings under Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Lapse 
of - Declaration - Entitlement to - Held: Since compensation has 
not been paid, owners are entitled to declaration u/s. 24(2). 
Locus Standi - Acquisition proceedings - In respect of land in 
Delhi - Challenged - By the purchaser of the land - Plea of State 
A 
B 
c 
that the purchaser had no locus to challenge the proceedings as the 
D 
purchase/transfer of land after Notification uls. 4(1) of Land 
Acquisition Act, 1894 was void - Held: Under Delhi Lands 
(Restrictions on Transfer) Act, 1972, restriction on transfer is only 
after the Declaration u/s. 6(1) of 1894 Act- In the present case, the 
transfer was prior to s. 6(1) Declaration, though after s. 4(1) 
Notification - Hence the transfer was not void - Therefore, owners 
E 
cannot be non-suited for having no locus standi - Land Acquisition 
Act, 1894 -ss. 4(1) and 6(1)-Delhi Lands (Restrictions on Transfer) 
Act, 1972 - ss. 3 and 4. 
Dismissing the appeals, the Court 
HELD: 1.1 Under the Delhi Lands (Restrictions on 
Transfer) Act, 1972, the restriction on transfer is only after 
publication of Notification under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition 
Act, 1894. Being a special law as far as Delhi is concerned, this 
will, in no case, prevail over any othe1· general law on restriction 
on transfer after initiation of acquisition proceedings. [Paras 5, 
6] (732-F; 733-B-C] 
1.2 In the instant case, the transfer is prior to Section 6(1) 
declaration, though after Section 4(1). Therefore, it is not correct 
to say that the writ petitioners did not have any locus sl<mdi to 
challenge the land acquisition on account of transfer being void 
729 
F 
G 
H 
730 
A 
B 
c 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2016] 8 S.C.R. 
as the transfer was made afte1· initiation of land acquisition 
proceedings. Therefore, the respondent cannot be non-suited 
on the ground that be has no locus standi. [Paras 7, 8J [733-C-D, 
F) 
2. The benefit under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair 
Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition 
Rehabilitation Resettlement Act, 2013 Act is available in the 
event of two circumstances - (i) The compensation has not been 
paid though the Award has been passed under the provisions of 
the 1894 Act prior to 01.01.2014; (ii) Despite passing an Award 
and payment of compensation, possession had not been taken 
five years prior to 01.01.2014. As far as the compensation part is 
concerned, there is no dispute that the same has not been paid. 
Hence, the writ petitioner is entitled to have the declaration under 
Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act. [Para 8] [733-E-F] 
3. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, the 
D appellant is given a period of one year to exercise its liberty 
granted under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation 
and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and 
Resettlement Act, 2013 for initiation of the acquisition 
proceedings afresh. [Para 9] [733-G] 
E 
F 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil, Appeal No. 11826 
of2016. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 22.12.2014 of the High Court 
of Delhi at New Delhi in Writ Petition (C) No. 7875 of2014. 
WITH 
Civil Appeal No. 11827of2016. 
P. S. Narasimha,ASG, Ajit Kumar Sinha, Mahabir Singh, Ravinder 
Sethi, Amrender Saran, Anoop Baghi, Jitendra Mohan Sharma, P.P. 
Malhotra, A. K. Sanghi, Sr. Advs., Praneet Pranav, Ms. Binu Tamta, 
G Shadman Ali, Ms. Rashmi Malhotra, Vibhu Shanker Mishra, R. S. Nagar, 
Raj Bahadur Yadav, Ms. Meera Bhatia, M. P. Gupta, Dev Kumar, B. K. 
Prasad, D. S. Mahra, N.S. Vasisht, Vishal Singh, Ms. Jyoti Kataria, 
M.P. Bhargava, Pradeep Misra, S.K. Rout, Onkar Prasad, Meera Bhatia, 
Nitin Mishra, Rakesh Dahiya, Satyavan Kudalwal,Aditya Dahiya, Rajiv 
Kumar Ghawana, T.V.S. Raghavendra Sreyas, Puneet Sharma, Bankey 
H Bihari, Ms. Smita Maan, B.S. Maan, Vishal Maan, Naresh Maan, R.K. 
DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY v. ISLAMUDDIN 
731 
Shokeen, Roopansh Purohit, Sumit Bansal, Ateev Mathur, Ms. Richa 
A 
Oberoi, Vikas Kumar, Preetik Kohli, Manish Paliwal, Vanshaja Shukla, 
Ritika Jhuniani, Anup Kumar, B. Tripathy, Naresh Kaushik, Randhir 
Pandey, Gaurav Goel, Praveen Sehrawat, Sumeer Sodhi, Arjun Nanda, 
T. Mahipal,
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.