Delhi Development Authority vs Dewan Chand Pruthi and Ors.
Background
Land in Delhi was acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for the Delhi Development Authority. Before the Delhi High Court, the Land Acquisition Collector stated on affidavit that possession of the land could not be taken because the High Court itself had granted a stay against dispossession, though the compensation had been sent to the Revenue Deposit. Dewan Chand Pruthi, the landowner, filed a writ petition claiming the acquisition had lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act. The High Court, relying on Pune Municipal Corporation (2014), allowed the petition and declared the acquisition lapsed.
Decision Breakdown
The Supreme Court allowed the DDA's appeal and quashed the High Court's order. It held that the Constitution Bench in Indore Development Authority vs Manoharlal (2020) had overruled Pune Municipal Corporation and had specifically laid down that where the acquiring body could not take possession because of a court stay, the period of the stay must be excluded when computing the five-year period for lapse. The Court added that, quite apart from that rule, a landowner who has himself obtained a stay against dispossession, which is the very reason possession could not be taken, cannot then argue that the acquisition lapsed because possession was not taken. Reproducing the Constitution Bench's full summary of the law on Section 24, the Court found the High Court's judgment unsustainable and set it aside, with no order as to costs.
Lesson Learnt
A landowner cannot benefit from his own court stay: if you obtain an order stopping the government from taking possession of acquired land, you cannot later claim the acquisition lapsed because possession was never taken. Time spent under a court stay is excluded from the five-year lapse period under the 2013 Act.