Research › Browse › Judgment

Supreme Court of India · body

2017 DIGILAW 712 (SC)

Delhi Development Authority v. Krishan Kumar HUF

2017-04-20

KURIAN JOSEPH, R.BANUMATHI

body2017
ORDER : SLP (C) No.15345 of 2015, SLP(C) No.15347 of 2015, SLP(C) No.26533 of 2015, SLP(C) No.30127 of 2015, SLP(C) No.30190 of 2015, SLP(C) No.30199 of 2015, SLP(C) No.30201 of 2015, SLP(C) No.30202 of 2015, SLP(C) No.30207 of 2015, SLP(C) No.30208 of 2015, SLP(C) No.8796 of 2016, SLP(C) No.8987 of 2016, SLP(C) No.9179 of 2016, SLP(C) No.10167 of 2016, SLP(C) No.11394 of 2016, SLP(C) No.24320 of 2016, SLP(C) No.28271 of 2016, SLP(C) No.28283 of 2016, SLP(C) No.38281 of 2016, SLP(C) No.38282 of 2016, SLP(C) No.38285 of 2016, SLP(C) No.38293 of 2016, SLP(C) No.38294 of 2016, SLP(C) No.38306 of 2016, SLP(C) No.38347 of 2016, SLP(C) No.38350 of 2016, SLP(C) No.38369 of 2016, SLP(C) No.1778 of 2017 2. Post after the Reference to the larger Bench dated 12.01.2016, regarding the effect of the stay operating, which prevented the DDA/NCT from taking possession, is answered by the larger Bench. SLP (C) No. 15346 of 2015 (Item No. 15) 3. We are informed that despite vacation of stay in the year 2010, so far no compensation has been paid. 4. Therefore, de-tag this matter and post for final hearing on 12.07.2017. SLP (C) No. 15348 of 2015 (Item No.17) 5. The learned counsel for the first respondent, inviting our reference to the additional affidavit, submits that there was no stay as far as the particular land referred to in this Special Leave Petition is concerned. The stay, that is referred to in the affidavit, is in respect of another piece of land owned by the father of the first respondent. 6. In view of the above submission, detag this matter and list on 03.05.2017. 7. The Delhi Development Authority is directed to make available a copy of the stay order which operated in respect of 5 Bighas 17 Biswas of the land belonging to the first respondent. 8. It is made clear that if the stay order is not produced by that date, it will be presumed that there is no stay and the Court will be constrained to go with the additional affidavit of the first respondent. SLP (C) No. 25536 of 2015 (Item No.18) and SLP (C) No. 38374 of 2016 (Item No.68) 9. These are the Special Leave Petitions filed by DDA and Government of NCT of Delhi. SLP (C) No. 25536 of 2015 (Item No.18) and SLP (C) No. 38374 of 2016 (Item No.68) 9. These are the Special Leave Petitions filed by DDA and Government of NCT of Delhi. According to the petitioners, possession could not be taken or compensation could not be paid on account of stay granted by the courts operating in respect of the land. However, on a pointed query, it is fairly submitted that the stay was not in respect of the land referred to in these petitions, but in respect of the adjoining land covered by the same award. 10. We are afraid, such a contention is not available to the DDA/NCT. The stay should be in respect of the particular land. 11. The learned counsel for the petitioners further submit that these are the cases of subsequent purchasers. However, the respondents submit that the purchase was made after obtaining No Objection Certificate. It is seen from the additional documents filed by the first respondent that the purchase was after obtaining NOC from the competent authority in terms of Section 5 of The Delhi Land (Restrictions on Transfer) Act, 1972. Arguments concluded. Judgment reserved. SLP (C) No. 26535 of 2015 (Item No. 20) 12. It is brought to the notice of this Court that there was no stay operating in respect of the land in question. The stay was in respect of the adjoining land. Post along with SLP (C) No. 30134 of 2015 on 03.05.2017. SLP (C) No. 28305 of 2015 (Item No. 21) 13. It is submitted that this is a case of subsequent purchaser. But it is the case of the first respondent that the sale is after obtaining NOC from the competent authority. Arguments concluded. Judgment reserved. SLP (C) No. 30167 of 2015 (Item No. 23) 14. It is submitted that this is a case of subsequent purchaser. But it is the case of the first respondent that the sale is after obtaining NOC from the competent authority. Arguments concluded. Judgment reserved. Arguments concluded. Judgment reserved. SLP (C) No. 30167 of 2015 (Item No. 23) 14. It is submitted that this is a case of subsequent purchaser. But it is the case of the first respondent that the sale is after obtaining NOC from the competent authority. Arguments concluded. Judgment reserved. SLP (C) No.30170 of 2015 (Item No.24), SLP (C) No.13381 of 2015 (Taken on board), SLP(C) No.7731 of 2016 (Item No.31), SLP(C) No.7754 of 2016 (Item No.32), SLP(C) No.8762 of 2016 (Item No.33), SLP(C) No.11404 of 2016 (Item No.39), SLP(C) No.11479 of 2016 (Item No.40), SLP(C) No.38296 of 2016 (Item No.54), SLP(C) No.38299 of 2016 (Item No.55), SLP(C) No.38355 of 2016 (Item No.60), SLP(C) No.38360 of 2016 (Item No.61), SLP (C) No.38366 of 2016 (Item No.65) 15. It is submitted that these are the cases of subsequent purchasers. Arguments concluded. Judgment reserved. SLP (C) No. 28277 of 2016 (Item No. 43) 16. The learned counsel for the first respondent emphatically submits that he is the original owner and therefore, no stay was operating. The learned counsel for the DDA is directed to produce a copy of the stay order. List on 03.05.2017. SLP(C) No. 38290 of 2016 (Item No. 51) 17. The learned counsel for the respondent submits that the stay was against passing an award. However, the award had been passed. Therefore, nothing prevented the appellants from paying the compensation or taking possession. 18. In view of the above submission, detag this matter and list on 12.07.2017. SLP (C) No.38280 of 2016, SLP (C) No.38289 of 2016, SLP (C) No.38302 of 2016, SLP (C) No.38362 of 2016, SLP (C) No.38363 of 2016, SLP (C) No.38365 of 2016, SLP (C) No.38372 of 2016 Leave granted. The appeals are dismissed in terms of the signed non-reportable Judgment. Pending interlocutory applications, if any, stand disposed of.