Delhi Development Authority vs Bhim Sain Goel And Other

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2022 Supreme(SC) 1424

K. M. JOSEPH, HRISHIKESH ROY
Delhi Development Authority – Appellant
Versus
Bhim Sain Goel And Other – Respondent

Advocates appeared:
Mr. Sanjay Poddar, Sr. Advocate, Mr. Vishnu B. Saharya, Advocate, Mr. Viresh B. Saharya, Advocate, M/s. Saharya & Co., Advocate, Mr. Akshay Dhatwalia, Advocate, Ms. Kumud Nijhawan, Advocate, Mr. Ashwani Kumar, Advocate, Mr. Pranab Kumar Mullick, Advocate, Ms. Soma Mullick, Advocate, Mr. Biswaranjan Kumar, Advocate, Mr. Sebat Kumar Deuria, Advocate, Mr. Siddharth Singla, Advocate, Mr. Sanjay Poddar, Sr. Advocate, Mr. Praveen Swarup, Advocate, Mr. Shivam Goel, Advocate, Mr. Anil Kumar Goel, Advocate, Mr. Pratish Goel, Advocate, Mr. Ramya Goel, Advocate, Ms. Payal Swarup, Advocate, Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, ASG, Mr. Manvendra Singh, Advocate, Ms. Shivika Mehra, Advocate, Ms. BLN Shivani, Advocate, Mr. Aman Sharma, Advocate, Ms. Priyanka Das, Advocate, Mr. Abhishek Sarkar, Advocate, Ms. Noor Rampal, Advocate, Mr. Raghvendra S. Srivatsa, Advocate, Mr. Atul Kumar, Advocate, Ms. Sweety Singh, Advocate, Mr. Rahul Pandey, Advocate, Mr. Rajiv Ranjan, Advocate, Counsel for the parties.

JUDGMENT

K.M. Joseph, J. - Delay condoned.

2. Applications for condonation of delay in filing substitution, setting aside abatement and substitution are allowed.

Mr. Pranab Kumar Mullick, learned counsel, appears for the legal representatives of deceased respondents.

3. Leave granted.

4. A notification dated 21.03.2003 was issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 1894 Act') purporting to acquire lands belonging to the respondents. This was duly followed up by declaration under Section 6 of the 1894 Act on 18.03.2004. On 22.08.2005, an Award was passed in the matter. Writ Petition No. 21639/2005 came to be filed before the High Court laying challenge to the declaration under Section 6. What is more pertinent is that, the High Court directed on 18.11.2005 that status quo with regard to nature, title and possession of the land in question be maintained. It is the case of the appellant that the authority could not take possession of the land as a result of the interim order. The writ petition came to be dismissed. However, on the application of the respondents, by order dated 18.09.2007, the High Court extended the stay order by a week. The respon

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2022 Supreme(SC) 1424

K. M. JOSEPH, HRISHIKESH ROYDelhi Development Authority – AppellantVersusBhim Sain Goel And Other – Respondent

Cases Referred (10)

K. M. JOSEPH, HRISHIKESH ROY
Delhi Development Authority – Appellant
Versus
Bhim Sain Goel And Other – Respondent