In Brief
Delhi Development Authority (DDA) sought to acquire private lands for road construction under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Respondents challenged the acquisition through litigation and obtained interim court orders preventing DDA from taking possession. DDA's subsequent attempt to acquire the same lands under the National Highways Act, 1956, created competing claims. The Supreme Court held that respondents cannot claim the benefit of Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act (deemed lapse provision) because they themselves obtained interim orders that prevented acquisition completion. The Court applied the doctrine of restitution, finding that litigants cannot benefit from their own obstructive conduct. The appeal was allowed, setting aside the High Court's judgment.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.