Section 24(1)(a) of 2013 Act Inapplicable Where Award is Passed Prior to Its Commencement

The Petitioners challenged the acquisition of 10 biswa of land in Village Aali, Delhi. This property was initially notified for acquisition in 1986, and a second notification followed in 2009 for the DMRC project.

The Petitioners engaged in multiple rounds of litigation: the first writ petition was disposed of in 2011.

the second was dismissed in 2017 with the court noting that the land fell within the DMRC depot complex.

a third writ petition seeking relief under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 ("2013 Act") was dismissed in 2025 with costs.

Despite these final judgments and the subsequent dismissal of SLPs by the Supreme Court, the Petitioners filed this fourth petition seeking compensation under Section 24(1)(a) of the 2013 Act and relief under the Delhi Development Act, 1957.

1. Whether the Petitioners are entitled to higher compensation under Section 24(1)(a) of the 2013 Act when an award had already been passed on 30.12.2013.

2. Whether the acquisition proceedings are liable to be interfered with under Section 21 of the Delhi Development Act, 1957.

3. Whether the present petition constitutes an abuse of the process of law due to repetitive litigation.

The court primarily applied Section 24(1)(a) of the 2013 Act, which stipulates that the new compensation regime applies only if no award under Section 11 of the 1894 Act had been made prior to the commencement of the 2013 Act.

It relied on the Constitution Bench precedent in Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal (2020), which clarified that if an award is made before 01.01.2014, there is no lapse and compensation is governed by the 1894 Act.

the court examined Section 21 of the Delhi Development Act, 1957, noting that the right of first refusal for original owners applies only if the land is disposed of without development.

The Court found that Section 24(1)(a) of the 2013 Act was inapplicable because the Award (6/2013-2014) was passed on 30.12.2013, prior to the Act’s commencement on 01.01.2014.

The Court rejected the Petitioners' attempt to use a typo in a previous judgment to claim the Act started in December 2013, noting that the typo had been judicially corrected.

Regarding the Delhi Development Act, the Court observed from maps that the DMRC had already undertaken development on the site, thereby negating the Petitioners' claims for disposal of land back to them.

Critically, the Court characterized the petition as a flagrant abuse of process, as the Petitioners were re-agitating issues already settled in three prior rounds of litigation and confirmed by the Supreme Court.

The Court held that the only remedy available to the Petitioners is to collect the compensation already determined under the 1894 Act.

Due to the repetitive nature of the filing and the failure to disclose the correction of the 2013 Act commencement date, the Court imposed exemplary costs of Rs. 25,000/- in addition to prior costs.