DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY versus TEJPAL & ORS.

Citation: [2024] 5 S.C.R. 1211 · Decided: 17-05-2024 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SURYA KANT · Disposal: Disposed off

cites 29 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

* Author
[2024] 5 S.C.R. 1211 : 2024 INSC 456
Delhi Development Authority 
v. 
Tejpal & Ors.
Civil Appeal No. 6798 of 2024
17 May 2024
[Surya Kant,* Dipankar Datta and Ujjal Bhuyan, JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
Whether the appellants made out sufficient cause for condonation 
of delay on the grounds of subsequent change of law brought in 
by Indore Development Authority v. Shailendra [2018] 2 SCR 1 
and Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal [2020] 3 SCR 1, 
public interest and justice, COVID-19 pandemic, suppression 
of material facts by the landowners, leeway to be granted to 
government entities etc.
Headnotes†
Land Acquisition – Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Right to 
Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition 
Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 – s.24(2) – Deemed 
lapse of land acquisition proceedings initiated under the 
1894 Act, on non-payment of compensation or non-taking of 
possession – Interpretation – Change of law – Condonation 
of delay sought on the basis of such subsequent change 
of law – Limitation Act, 1963 – s.24(2) was interpreted in 
Pune Municipal Corporation v. Harak Chand Mistrimal 
Solanki [2014] 1 SCR 783 and Sree Balaji Nagar Residential 
Association v. State of Tamil Nadu [2014] 7 SCR 799 – Following  
Pune Municipal Corporation and Sree Balaji, the High Court 
allowed the landowners’ claim and declared the acquisition 
proceedings as lapsed on account of non-payment of 
compensation or non-taking of possession – However, eventually 
five-judge bench in Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal  
[2020] 3 SCR 1 overruled Pune Municipal Corporation and  
Sree Balaji and Indore Development Authority v. Shailendra 
[2018] 2 SCR 1 – Present cases filed by the appellants before 
and after the decision in Shailendra as well as after the decision 
1212
[2024] 5 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
in Manoharlal in view of re-interpretation of s.24(2) of the 2013 
Act therein, against various orders of the High Court whereby 
acquisition proceedings were declared to have lapsed in terms 
of s.24(2) – Delay in filing – Condonation of delay sought on 
the basis of subsequent change of law in view of the decisions 
in Shailendra and Manoharlal – Impermissibility:
Held: In most of the present cases, the prescribed period of 
limitation had already expired long before the judgments in 
Shailendra and Manoharlal were delivered – Appellants let the 
limitation period lapse because they saw no case on merits for 
appeal – However, when the law was subsequently re-interpreted 
in Shailendra and Manoharlal, they approached this Court with the 
present matters – Instead of showing a sufficient cause arising 
within the period of limitation, the appellants are using an event 
after the expiry of such period to justify the delay – A party cannot 
be allowed to take advantage of its deliberate inaction during the 
limitation period – If subsequent change of law is allowed as a 
valid ground for condonation of delay, it would open a Pandora’s 
Box where all the cases that were subsequently overruled, or 
the cases that had relied on such cases, would approach this 
Court and would seek a relief based on the new interpretation of 
law – When a case is overruled, it is only its binding nature as a 
precedent that is taken away and the lis between the parties is 
still deemed to have been settled by the overruled case – When 
Manoharlal overruled Pune Municipal Corporation and Sree Balaji 
and other cases relying on them, it only overruled their precedential 
value, and did not reopen the lis between the parties – Therefore, 
the mere fact that the impugned orders in the present case were 
overruled by Manoharlal would not be a sufficient ground to argue 
that the cases should be reopened – Delay cannot be condoned 
based on subsequent change of law brought in by Shailendra and 
Manoharlal. [Paras 22, 25-27, 29]
Land Acquisition – Public interest – Right to Fair Compensation 
and Transparency in Land Acquisition Rehabilitation and 
Resettlement Act, 2013 – s.24(2) – Condonation of delay in 
filing appeals sought by the appellants-government entities 
on grounds of public interest – Public infrastructure projects 
such as hospitals, schools, expansion of metro, etc. built on a 
large number of acquired lands – Elements of public interest:
[2024] 5 S.C.R. 
1213
Delhi Development Authority v. Tejpal & Ors.
Held: While balancing the interest of the public exchequer against 
that of individual

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.