In Brief
A Delhi land dispute involved acquisition proceedings initiated in 1980. The original owner's writ petition was dismissed in 2005. A subsequent purchaser bought the land in 2011 and challenged the acquisition, arguing it had lapsed due to non-payment of compensation. The Supreme Court held that a subsequent purchaser cannot claim lapsing of proceedings and that deposit in court without prior tender to the landowner does not constitute payment. The Court set aside the High Court's order and dismissed the purchaser's writ petition, allowing the acquisition appeal.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.