Prudeta
Prudeta
2026 INSC 436
📌 Paras 4-10
The appellant purchased a commercial plot from the respondent (DDA) in 2007-08, paying the full sale consideration and stamp duty. The DDA executed a conveyance deed in favour of the appellant. Subsequently, a writ petition by an erstwhile owner led to a Supreme Court order declaring the land acquisition lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation Act, 2013. The DDA was granted six months to initiate fresh acquisition, which expired without action. The appellant, unaware of these proceedings, sought a refund of amounts paid. The DDA's defence, including alleged continued possession and the need for handover before refund, was rejected by the Supreme Court. The appellant's suit for refund was filed in 2020.
📌
The bench further analyzed the constitutional validity of the impugned provisions and discussed the interpretation of Articles 14 and 21 in light of recent precedents...
Citing the ratio in prior decisions, the court held that the legislative intent was to ensure...
No credit card required · 14-day free trial