Yusuf Khan @ Dilip Kumar v. Prajita Developers Pvt. Ltd.
Background
A 95-year-old landowner in Mumbai had entered into a 2006 development agreement granting two companies the right to develop his property in exchange for payments, with construction required to be completed within a fixed timeline. The developers never meaningfully began construction even years later, and after the owner terminated the agreement, the assignee-developer (Prajita) sought to block him through arbitration and court proceedings while posting armed guards on the property to keep him out. The dispute had already gone through multiple rounds of litigation, including an earlier dismissed Special Leave Petition by Prajita.
Decision Breakdown
Noting that no real construction had ever been carried out despite more than a decade passing, the Supreme Court found it unjust to let a stale specific-performance claim continue to block the elderly owner's possession of his own land. It brokered a resolution: the owner would deposit Rs. 20 crore with the Court registry, in exchange for which Prajita would remove its security guards and hand back possession of the property to the owner under police supervision, with Prajita entitled to withdraw the deposited amount once a possession record (Panchnama) was filed. The separate question of whether Prajita was entitled to any additional damages was referred to arbitration before a named retired judge, rather than being decided by the Court itself.
Lesson Learnt
Courts can step in to end a prolonged possession standoff by ordering a clean, supervised handover against a monetary deposit, even while leaving narrower follow-on disputes (like damages) to be sorted out through arbitration.