Land Acquisition Act| If Acquisition Is Valid Under 1894 Act, Compensation Cannot Be Based On 2013 Act: SC

Further, the Court accepted the condonation of delay application filed by the Appellants as the Appeal was initiated after 7 years of previous order.

A two-judge Bench of Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Sanjay Karol held that “Over the years, this Court has repeatedly held that a liberal and justice­oriented approach needs to be adopted in the matters of condonation of delay so that the substantive rights of the parties are not defeated only on the ground of delay. The power under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 must be exercised in a very meaningful manner which will serve the ends of justice.”

The Court further added that “We may also note here that the petition invoking sub­Section (2) of Section 24 of the 2013 Act was filed by the appellant nearly seventeen months after the 2013 Act came into force. In a case where the land was not put to use for a public purpose, the approach of this Court while deciding the application for condonation of a long delay in such a case would have been different.”

AOR Ashwani Kumar appeared for the Appellant while AOR Gagan Gupta appeared for the Respondents.

The land of the Respondent was acquired by the Appellant under the provisions of the 1894 Act. The Respondents challenged the acquisition notification at the Delhi High Court which was subsequently dismissed. Following this, the Appellants acquired the land in 2006.

The 1894 Act was repealed by the 2013 Act. Following this, the Respondents approached the Delhi High Court seeking compensation according to the new rules of the 2013 Act. The High Court held that sub­Section (2) of Section 24 of the 2013 Act will apply as the compensation has not been paid to the first respondent although physical possession of the acquired. This was challenged by the Appellants before the Apex Court.

The Supreme Court while dealing with the facts and circumstances said that “In this case, admittedly, the acquired land has been used by DMRC for the metro depot and the metro depot exists on the acquired land as noted in the impugned judgment. Thus, when the Writ Petition was filed invoking sub­Section (2) of Section 24 of the 2013 Act, the acquired land was already put to use for an important public purpose of the metro depot. The use of the land for public purposes for the last several years is certainly a relevant factor for adopting a liberal approach while considering the prayer for condoning the delay. “

Further, the Court noticed the land acquired by the Appellants for public purpose also had street hawkers on the payment, therefore the Court said “while looking at the photographs of the metro depot constructed on the acquired land which have been produced along with an affidavit dated 15th April 2023, we noticed that a part of the pavement abutting the metro depot which is a part of the acquired land has been already occupied by “a car clinic” and other vendors. A citizen has lost his valuable property by way of compulsory acquisition. The compulsory acquisition has been made for a public purpose and therefore, the appellant and all the concerned authorities cannot allow the pavement to be used for any purpose except for allowing people to walk”

The Supreme Court imposed a fine of Rs. 50,000 on the Appellant to be paid to the Respondent and set aside the High Court order directing compensation according to the 2013 Act.

Cause Title: Delhi Development Authority v. Jagan Singh & Ors.

Click here to read/download the Judgment