Fresh land acquisition proceedings under Section 24(2) are governed by Supreme Court’s extended one-year timeline.

The Petitioner challenged the acquisition of land in Khasra Nos. 60/22/1 and 60/22/2, Village Shahbad Daulatpur, Delhi.

On September 12, 2014, the High Court declared the acquisition lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act as compensation remained unpaid.

The Delhi Development Authority (DDA) appealed to the Supreme Court, which dismissed the appeal on August 31, 2016, but granted the DDA one year to initiate fresh acquisition proceedings under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act.

Following various review and miscellaneous applications, the Supreme Court, vide order dated December 11, 2024, granted a further one-year extension for completing acquisition proceedings in line with the K.L. Rathi Steels judgment.

The Petitioner brought the matter back to the High Court due to administrative confusion regarding a covering letter from the Supreme Court Registry.

1. Whether the writ petition survives for further adjudication in light of the subsequent extension orders passed by the Supreme Court.

2. Whether fresh acquisition proceedings had been initiated by the Respondents within the extended timelines.

Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, which provides for the lapsing of acquisition proceedings under specific conditions of non-payment or non-possession.

Supreme Court’s directions in Government of NCT of Delhi v. K.L. Rathi Steels Limited and Others (2024) 7 SCC 315, which exercised powers under Article 142 of the Constitution to extend timelines for fresh acquisition, dispense with Social Impact Assessment (Chapters II and III of the 2013 Act), and deem 1894 Act notifications as Section 11 notifications under the 2013 Act.

The High Court observed that the legal landscape of the dispute was now governed by the specific directions of the Supreme Court.

Although the acquisition was originally declared lapsed in 2014, the Supreme Court’s subsequent orders in 2016 and 2024 modified the relief by granting the DDA additional time to complete fresh acquisition.

The Bench noted the Supreme Court’s December 11, 2024, order which explicitly extended the period for completion of acquisition by one year from that date.

The Respondents confirmed that no new proceedings had been initiated yet.

The High Court reasoned that because the Supreme Court had already provided a definitive timeline and a comprehensive framework for the acquisition process (or the return of land upon failure), there was no independent cause of action remaining for the High Court to adjudicate.

The Court disposed of the petition, clarifying that the rights of the parties are now governed by the Supreme Court orders dated August 31, 2016, and December 11, 2024.

No further orders were deemed necessary.