Real judgements, distilled

Legal Case Shots

Court judgements broken down into the case type, how the decision played out, and the lesson worth remembering, with the full judgement available as a PDF.

Frequently asked questions

Is this suitable for use in legal research and court filings?+

Legal Case Shots is built to help you quickly identify and understand relevant precedent. For citation in pleadings or filings, always verify against the full judgment PDF and current citation format (e.g., 2026 INSC ___).

How is a "lesson learnt" different from the judgment's holding?+

The holding is what the court legally decided. The lesson learnt translates that into a practical takeaway: what a lawyer should factor into case strategy or client advice as a result of this precedent.

Is the full judgment available, or just a summary?+

Both. Each case shows a distilled summary (case type, key holding, and lesson learnt) and links to the full judgment as a PDF for when you need the complete text for research or citation.

Can I filter judgments by date or case type?+

Yes. Use Advanced Filters to narrow results by decision date and by practice area, including Constitutional Law, Criminal Law, Service & Administrative Law, Family Law, Civil Property & Inheritance, and Labour & Industrial Law.

Can I search judgments by a specific judge?+

Yes. You can filter judgments by the judge or bench that decided the case, which is useful for tracking how a particular judge has reasoned on similar issues across multiple rulings.

What is Legal Case Shots?+

Legal Case Shots is a searchable database of Supreme Court of India judgments, each broken down into the case type, the court's key holding, and a practical lesson learnt, with the full judgment available as a PDF for citation or deeper reading.

Civil Property & InheritanceSupreme Court of India

Government of NCT of Delhi & Anr. vs. Sudesh Verma & Anr.

Civil AppealDecided 2 Dec 2022
Civil Appeal No. 8929 of 2022
M.R. Shah · C.T. Ravikumar

Background

The Delhi High Court had declared that land acquisition proceedings under the old Land Acquisition Act, 1894 had lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013 land acquisition law, relying on an earlier Supreme Court ruling (Pune Municipal Corporation) that said acquisitions lapse if possession was not taken or compensation not paid for five years. The Government of NCT of Delhi appealed. The government's case was that possession could not be taken earlier only because the original landowners themselves had been contesting the acquisition in court, all the way up to the Supreme Court, and lost.

Decision Breakdown

The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's ruling. It held that the Pune Municipal Corporation decision the High Court relied on had since been overruled by a five-judge Constitution Bench in Indore Development Authority vs. Manoharlal (2020), which clarified that a "lapse" under Section 24(2) requires proof that authorities were inactive, but delays caused by the landowners' own litigation must be excluded from that five-year period, and once possession is taken there is no revival of the acquisition. Since the landowners here had themselves prolonged the litigation and ultimately lost, they could not now claim the acquisition lapsed because possession was delayed by their own challenge.

Lesson Learnt

A landowner who tied up a land acquisition in years of litigation, and lost, cannot later claim the acquisition itself lapsed because the government could not take possession during that very litigation. Courts will not let a party benefit from delay it caused.

Government of NCT of Delhi & Anr. vs. Sudesh Verma & Anr. – Legal Case Shots | LegalAware