Breaking Supreme Court Legal Update
New Delhi · Friday, 31 July 2026 9888666310 | [email protected]
Free Law — free judgments and free headnotes Free Lawby De Jure
Supreme Court of India 2024-05-17 partly_allowed

Delhi Development Authority vs Tejpal & Ors

Bench: 3 — Surya Kant, Dipankar Datta, Ujjal Bhuyan

In Brief

The Supreme Court addressed whether delays in filing special leave petitions challenging land acquisition proceedings declared lapsed under the 2013 Act should be condoned. The Court held that delay can be condoned on grounds of: (1) allegations of fraud/suppression of facts; (2) COVID-19 pandemic delays; and (3) public interest where acquisition relates to critical infrastructure (metro, hospitals). Conversely, delay cannot be condoned based on subsequent change of law alone or mere bureaucratic delays. The Court upheld the Manoharlal principle that for acquisitions to lapse, both non-payment of compensation AND non-possession must occur. Multiple case lists were created with tailored relief: some cases returned to High Court for fact-finding on fraud; others upheld under Manoharlal; remaining cases given extended timelines for fresh acquisition under the 2013 Act using Article 142 powers to serve complete justice.

The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.

Land Acquisition Limitation Law Constitutional Law Article 142 Public Interest

Read the full judgment & headnote. It's free.

Register to read the complete Supreme Court judgment text and the headnote, and to search 1 lakh+ Supreme Court judgments by meaning. It is a free service.

Register Free Login