Delhi Development Authority vs Eminent Marketing Pvt. Ltd.

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2023 Supreme(SC) 34

M. R. SHAH, C. T. RAVIKUMAR
Delhi Development Authority – Appellant
Versus
Eminent Marketing Pvt. Ltd. – Respondent

Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Nitin Mishra, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Gopal Sankarnarayan, Sr. Adv. Mr. Brijesh Choudhary, Adv. Mr. Deepayan Mandal, AOR Mr. Prins Kumar, Adv. Mr. Mridul Bansal, Adv. Mr. Naman Varma, Adv. Mr. Arvind Kumar Sharma, AOR Ms. Astha Tyagi, AOR Mr. Dinesh Chander Trehan, Adv. Ms. Diksha Narula, Adv.

JUDGMENT :

M.R. SHAH, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order dated 13.12.2017 passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in Writ Petition (C) No. 11476 of 2016 by which the High Court has allowed the said writ petition and has declared that the acquisition with respect to the land in question is deemed to have lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as “Act, 2013”), the Delhi Development Authority has preferred the present appeal.

3. We have heard Shri Nitin Mishra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant and Shri Gopal Sankaranarayan, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the contesting respondent no.1 – original writ petitioner at length. We have also gone through and considered the averments in the original writ petition as well as the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court.

3.1 From the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court it appears that though it was the specific case on behalf of the Authority and so stated in the counter that the possession of