# Delhi Development Authority v. Tejpal & Ors

- **Citation:** 2024 INSC 456
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2024-05-17
- **Case number:** Civil Appeal No. 6798 of 2024
- **Bench:** Surya Kant, Dipankar Datta, Ujjal Bhuyan
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/delhi-development-authority-v-tejpal-ors-37797
- **Pages:** 94

## Headnote

Whether the appellants made out sufficient cause for condonation
of delay on the grounds of subsequent change of law brought in
by Indore Development Authority v. Shailendra [2018] 2 SCR 1
and Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal [2020] 3 SCR 1,
public interest and justice, COVID-19 pandemic, suppression
of material facts by the landowners, leeway to be granted to
government entities etc.
Headnotes†
Land Acquisition - Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Right to
Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition
Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 - s.24(2) - Deemed
lapse of land acquisition proceedings initiated under the
1894 Act, on non-payment of compensation or non-taking of
possession - Interpretation - Change of law - Condonation
of delay sought on the basis of such subsequent change
of law - Limitation Act, 1963 - s.24(2) was interpreted in
Pune Municipal Corporation v. Harak Chand Mistrimal
Solanki [2014] 1 SCR 783 and Sree Balaji Nagar Residential
Association v. State of Tamil Nadu [2014] 7 SCR 799 - Following
Pune Municipal Corporation and Sree Balaji, the High Court
allowed the landowners' claim and declared the acquisition
proceedings as lapsed on account of non-payment of
compensation or non-taking of possession - However, eventually
five-judge bench in Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal
[2020] 3 SCR 1 overruled Pune Municipal Corporation and
Sree Balaji and Indore Development Authority v. Shailendra
[2018] 2 SCR 1 - Present cases filed by the appellants before
and after the decision in Shailendra as well as after the decision
1212
[2024] 5 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
in Manoharlal in view of re-interpretation of s.24(2) of the 2013
Act therein, against various orders of the High Court whereby
acquisition proceedings were declared to have lapsed in terms
of s.24(2) - Delay in filing - Condonation of delay sought on
the basis of subsequent change of law in view of the decisions
in Shailendra and Manoharlal - Impermissibility:
Held: In most of the present cases, the prescribed period of
limitation had already expired long before the judgments in
Shailendra and Manoharlal were delivered - Appellants let the
limitation period lapse because they saw no case on merits for
appeal - However, when the law was subsequently re-interpreted
in Shailendra and Manoharlal, they approached this Court with the
present matters - Instead of showing a sufficient cause arising
within the period of limitation, the appellants are using an event
after the expiry of such period to justify the delay - A party cannot
be allowed to take advantage of its deliberate inaction during the
limitation period - If subsequent change of law is allowed as a
valid ground for condonation of delay, it would open a Pandora's
Box where all the cases that were subsequently overruled, or
the cases that had relied on such cases, would approach this
Court and would seek a relief based on the new interpretation of
law - When a case is overruled, it is only its binding nature as a
precedent that is taken away and the lis between the parties is
still deemed to have been settled by the overruled case - When
Manoharlal overruled Pune Municipal Corporation and Sree Balaji
and other cases relying on them, it only overruled their precedential
value, and did not reopen the lis between the parties - Therefore,
the mere fact that the impugned orders in the present case were
overruled by Manoharlal would not be a sufficient ground to argue
that the cases should be reopened - Delay cannot be condoned
based on subsequent change of law brought in by Shailendra and
Manoharlal. [Paras 22, 25-27, 29]
Land Acquisition - Public interest - Right to Fair Compensation
and Transparency in Land Acquisition Rehabilitation and
Resettlement Act, 2013 - s.24(2) - Condonation of delay in
filing appeals sought by the appellants-government entities
on grounds of public interest - Public infrastructure projects
such as hospitals, schools, expansion of metro, etc. bui

## Text

_Characters 0–39,994 of 185,109. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39994 for what follows._

* Author
[2024] 5 S.C.R. 1211 : 2024 INSC 456
Delhi Development Authority
v.
Tejpal & Ors.
Civil Appeal No. 6798 of 2024
17 May 2024
[Surya Kant,* Dipankar Datta and Ujjal Bhuyan, JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
Whether the appellants made out sufficient cause for condonation
of delay on the grounds of subsequent change of law brought in
by Indore Development Authority v. Shailendra [2018] 2 SCR 1
and Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal [2020] 3 SCR 1,
public interest and justice, COVID-19 pandemic, suppression
of material facts by the landowners, leeway to be granted to
government entities etc.
Headnotes†
Land Acquisition - Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Right to
Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition
Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 - s.24(2) - Deemed
lapse of land acquisition proceedings initiated under the
1894 Act, on non-payment of compensation or non-taking of
possession - Interpretation - Change of law - Condonation
of delay sought on the basis of such subsequent change
of law - Limitation Act, 1963 - s.24(2) was interpreted in
Pune Municipal Corporation v. Harak Chand Mistrimal
Solanki [2014] 1 SCR 783 and Sree Balaji Nagar Residential
Association v. State of Tamil Nadu [2014] 7 SCR 799 - Following
Pune Municipal Corporation and Sree Balaji, the High Court
allowed the landowners' claim and declared the acquisition
proceedings as lapsed on account of non-payment of
compensation or non-taking of possession - However, eventually
five-judge bench in Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal
[2020] 3 SCR 1 overruled Pune Municipal Corporation and
Sree Balaji and Indore Development Authority v. Shailendra
[2018] 2 SCR 1 - Present cases filed by the appellants before
and after the decision in Shailendra as well as after the decision
1212
[2024] 5 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
in Manoharlal in view of re-interpretation of s.24(2) of the 2013
Act therein, against various orders of the High Court whereby
acquisition proceedings were declared to have lapsed in terms
of s.24(2) - Delay in filing - Condonation of delay sought on
the basis of subsequent change of law in view of the decisions
in Shailendra and Manoharlal - Impermissibility:
Held: In most of the present cases, the prescribed period of
limitation had already expired long before the judgments in
Shailendra and Manoharlal were delivered - Appellants let the
limitation period lapse because they saw no case on merits for
appeal - However, when the law was subsequently re-interpreted
in Shailendra and Manoharlal, they approached this Court with the
present matters - Instead of showing a sufficient cause arising
within the period of limitation, the appellants are using an event
after the expiry of such period to justify the delay - A party cannot
be allowed to take advantage of its deliberate inaction during the
limitation period - If subsequent change of law is allowed as a
valid ground for condonation of delay, it would open a Pandora's
Box where all the cases that were subsequently overruled, or
the cases that had relied on such cases, would approach this
Court and would seek a relief based on the new interpretation of
law - When a case is overruled, it is only its binding nature as a
precedent that is taken away and the lis between the parties is
still deemed to have been settled by the overruled case - When
Manoharlal overruled Pune Municipal Corporation and Sree Balaji
and other cases relying on them, it only overruled their precedential
value, and did not reopen the lis between the parties - Therefore,
the mere fact that the impugned orders in the present case were
overruled by Manoharlal would not be a sufficient ground to argue
that the cases should be reopened - Delay cannot be condoned
based on subsequent change of law brought in by Shailendra and
Manoharlal. [Paras 22, 25-27, 29]
Land Acquisition - Public interest - Right to Fair Compensation
and Transparency in Land Acquisition Rehabilitation and
Resettlement Act, 2013 - s.24(2) - Condonation of delay in
filing appeals sought by the appellants-government entities
on grounds of public interest - Public infrastructure projects
such as hospitals, schools, expansion of metro, etc. built on a
large number of acquired lands - Elements of public interest:
[2024] 5 S.C.R.
1213
Delhi Development Authority v. Tejpal & Ors.
Held: While balancing the interest of the public exchequer against
that of individuals, there are many other interests at stake, and
it might not be possible to undo the acquisitions without causing
significant cascading harms and losses to public infrastructure -
Effect of non-condonation of delay would go beyond mere financial
loss to the exchequer, and instead extend to the public at large -
There would be unscrambling the egg if compensation paid would
have to be clawed back or possession taken would have to be
reversed - In many cases, development projects might also have to
be undone - Rights have been vested to the public at large, given
the public infrastructure that has come up on a large number of
these acquired lands especially, in cases where the possession was
taken - When balancing public with private interest, the quantum
and adequacy of compensation do not compel much - Hence,
the comparative impact on the respondent-landowners would be
minimal - Multiplicity of contradictory judicial opinions on s.24(2) of
the 2013 Act made the present set of circumstances sui generis -
The constant flux in the legal position of law created significant
challenges for the appellants while approaching this Court - Impact
of not condoning the delay, discussed - Larger interest of justice
mandates condonation of the delay. [Paras 50-56]
Land Acquisition - Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Right to
Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition
Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 - Limitation Act,
1963 - s.17 - Condonation of delay sought on allegations of
concealment by respondents-landowners - High Court allowing
the landowners' claim declared the acquisition proceedings
as lapsed - Condonation of delay in filing present appeals
sought by the appellants-authorities inter alia on ground of
suppression of material facts by the landowners before High
Court in certain cases as regards previous unsuccessful
litigations, acquisitions being already complete, landowners
being only subsequent purchasers who acquired the lands
after they were notified for the acquisition - Scope of inquiry:
Held: Neither the landowners were called upon to refute or admit
the allegations of concealment of facts attributed to some of
them nor, the appellants were asked to produce original records
and documents to substantiate their allegation of concealment
and suppression of material facts - Entering into an arena of
factual controversy at such an advanced stage of litigation, and
1214
[2024] 5 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
that too without giving adequate opportunities to the parties
can be a potential threat to the cause of justice - No definitive
opinion expressed on allegations of concealment - However,
appellants have discharged prima facie burden for the limited
purpose of making out a case for condonation of delay in the
cases concerned - A detailed fact-finding inquiry is necessary
to ascertain the rightful title-holder and the claimant of receiving
the compensation - Hence, there exist sufficient grounds for the
condonation of delay - Orders of the High Court set aside in such
cases - Relevant writ petitions stand restored on the file of the
High Court - Directions issued. [Paras 20, 21, 70]
Limitation Act, 1963 - Objective - s.5 - "sufficient cause";
"within such period" - Law as regards condonation of delay -
Discussed.
Limitation Act, 1963 - "sufficient cause" - Condonation of
delay - Subsequent overruling of a judgement cannot be a
sufficient cause for condonation of delay - Exception:
Held: Cases pending before this Court will be an exception - If
the lis is still pending and has not reached finality, those cases
would be decided on the basis of five-judge bench decision in
Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal [2020] 3 SCR 1 as
a decision on the interpretation of law is applied retrospectively
unless the court specifically rules as to its prospective applicability.
[Paras 29, 30]
Judgments/Orders - Judgments interpreting law - Applicability:
Held: Judgment interpreting law is applied retrospectively unless
specifically made prospective. [Para 30]
Land Acquisition - Limitation - Delay on part of government
entities - Condonation of - Government entities, if to be
allowed leeway for:
Held: The delay cannot be condoned mechanically only because
the appellant is a government entity - Government entities must
show bona fide and demonstrate diligence in pursuing the matter -
The proposition that government entities ought to be afforded
greater latitude on issues of delay on account of administrative
exigencies, is no longer a precedent to be followed routinely -
If delay were to be condoned merely on the basis of a broad
general assertion of bureaucratic indifference, without requiring
[2024] 5 S.C.R.
1215
Delhi Development Authority v. Tejpal & Ors.
demonstration of bona fide or an act of mala fide on the part of
specific individuals, it would create an artificial distinction between
the private parties and the government entities vis-à-vis the law of
limitation which would not be in conformity with the spirit of equality
before law as guaranteed under the Constitution - Allowing such
latitude would further distort incentives for the government and
encourage more laxity by the bureaucracy in its general functioning,
thereby undermining quality governance. [Paras 35, 39]
Land Acquisition - Limitation - COVID-19 pandemic - Cases
filed after the expiration of the period of limitation - Appellants
sought condonation of delay inter alia on account of COVID-19
pandemic - Order dtd.23.03.2020 passed in In Re: Cognizance
for Extension of Limitation whereby period of limitation was
extended for proceedings before all courts/tribunals in the
country from 15.03.2020 till further orders, and various orders
passed by this Court from time to time - Benefit thereof, if
can be availed by appellants:
Held: No - Orders passed In Re: Cognizance for Extension of
Limitation were intended to benefit vigilant litigants who were
prevented due to the pandemic and the lockdown, from initiating
proceedings within the period of limitation prescribed by general
or special law - Appellants can avail the benefit of the aforesaid
order only in a case where the period of limitation expired between
15.03.2020 and 28.02.2022 - Thus, if the delay occurred on account
of the COVID-19 pandemic as laid down in In Re: Cognizance for
Extension of Limitation, such delay can be condoned. [Paras 45, 64]
Constitution of India - Article 142 - Exercise of powers
under - Land Acquisition - Cases where appellants did not
take possession of the acquired land and also did not pay
compensation and thus, cannot seek protection under Indore
Development Authority v. Manoharlal [2020] 3 SCR 1 - Nonconclusion of acquisition proceedings - Exercise of powers
u/Article 142:
Held: Substantial harm would ensue towards the public at large
if the acquisition proceedings are not concluded promptly - To
prevent such an outcome and after considering the unique facts
and circumstances of such batch of cases, powers exercised u/
Article 142 in the interests of doing complete justice - Directions
issued. [Para 72, 73]
1216
[2024] 5 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
Case Law Cited
State of Manipur v. Koting Lamkang [2019] 13 SCR 565 : (2019)
10 SCC 408; Sheo Raj Singh v. Union of India [2023] 13 SCR
743 : (2023) SCC OnLine SC 1278 - distinguished.
GNCTD (through Secretary, Land and Building Dept.) v. KL Rathi
Steels Ltd. MA No. 414/2023; Pune Municipal Corporation v.
Harak Chand Mistrimal Solanki [2014] 1 SCR 783 : (2014) 3
SCC 183; Sree Balaji Nagar Residential Association v. State
of Tamil Nadu [2014] 7 SCR 799 : (2015) 3 SCC 353; Yogesh
Neema v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2016) 6 SCC 387; Indore
Development Authority v. Shailendra (2018) 1 SCC 733; Indore
Development Authority v. Shailendra [2018] 2 SCR 1 : (2018) 3
SCC 412; State of Haryana v. GD Goenka Tourism Corporation
Ltd. (2018) 3 SCC 585; Indore Development Authority v. Shyam
Verma (2020) 15 SCC 342; State of Haryana v. Maharana Pratap
Charitable Trust (Regd.) (2018) SCC Online SC 3600; Indore
Development Authority v. Manoharlal [2020] 3 SCR 1 : (2020) 8
SCC 129; Commissioner of Customs v. Candid Enterprises (2002)
9 SCC 764; CIT v. Saurashtra Kutch Stock Exchange Ltd. [2008]
13 SCR 421 : (2008) 14 SCC 171; Collector (LA), Anantnag v.
Katiji [1987] 2 SCR 387 : (1987) 2 SCC 107; G. Ramegowda v.
Spl. Land Acquisition Officer [1988] 3 SCR 198 : (1988) 2 SCC
142; Imrat Lal v. LAC (2014) 14 SCC 133; Neelima Srivastava
v. State of UP [2021] 8 SCR 167 : (2021) SCC Online SC 610;
Natural Resources Allocation, In re, Special Reference 1 of 2012
[2012] 9 SCR 311 : (2012) 10 SCC 1; Postmaster General v.
Living Media India Ltd [2012] 1 SCR 1045 : (2012) 3 SCC 563;
Sagufa Ahmed v. Upper Assam Plywood Products (P) Ltd. [2020]
9 SCR 472 : (2021) 2 SCC 317; Pundlik Jalam Patil v. Executive
Engineer, Jalgaon Medium Project [2008] 15 SCR 135 : (2008)
17 SCC 448; Kumudini Ramdas Shah v. K.M. Mody AIR (1985)
Bombay 320; Basawaraj v. Land Acquisition Officer [2013] 8
SCR 227 : (2013) 14 SCC 81; Perumon Bhagvathy Devaswom v.
Bhargavi Amma [2008] 11 SCR 1 : (2008) 8 SCC 321; Raheem
Shah v. Govind Singh [2023] 10 SCR 913 : (2023) SCC OnLine
SC 910; Sarpanch, Lonand Gram Panchayat v. Ramgiri Gasavi &
Anr. [1967] 3 SCR 774 : (1967) SCC OnLine SC 105; Ramlal v.
Rewa Coalfields Ltd. [1962] 2 SCR 762 : (1961) SCC OnLine SC
3; Ummer v. Pottengal Subida [2018] 3 SCR 596 : (2018) 15 SCC
127; Meera Sahni v. Lt. Governor of Delhi [2008] 10 SCR 1012 :
(2008) 9 SCC 177; Ajit Singh Thakur v. State of Gujarat [1981]
[2024] 5 S.C.R.
1217
Delhi Development Authority v. Tejpal & Ors.
2 SCR 509 : (1981) 1 SCC 495; Tilokchand & Motichand v. H.B.
Munshi [1969] 2 SCR 824 : (1969) 1 SCC 110; Neelima Srivastava
v. State of Uttar Pradesh [2021] 8 SCR 167 : (2021) SCC Online
SC 610; R. Unnikrishnan v. V.K. Mahanudevan [2014] 1 SCR 350 :
(2014) 4 SCC 434; Shyam Madan Mohan Ruia v. Messer Holdings
Ltd. [2019] 15 SCR 396 : (2020) 5 SCC 252; Foreshore Coop.
Housing Society Ltd. v. Praveen D. Desai. [2015] 5 SCR 1075 :
(2015) 6 SCC 412; Nusli Neville Wadia v. Ivory Properties [2019]
15 SCR 795 : (2020) 6 SCC 557; Commissioner of Wealth Tax v.
Amateur Riders Club (1994) Supp. 2 SCC 603; State of Madhya
Pradesh v. Bherulal [2020] 8 SCR 912 : (2020) 10 SCC 654; In Re:
Cognizance for Extension of Limitation (2020) 19 SCC 10; State
of Jharkhand v. Lalu Prasad Yadav [2017] 3 SCR 630 : (2017) 8
SCC 1; High Court of Judicature of Patna v. Madan Mohan Prasad
[2011] 13 SCR 972 : (2011) 9 SCC 65; GNCTD v. BSK Realtors
SLP(C) Diary No. 17623/2021 - referred to.
List of Acts
Land Acquisition Act, 1894; Right to Fair Compensation and
Transparency in Land Acquisition Rehabilitation and Resettlement
Act, 2013; Limitation Act, 1963; Constitution of India; Supreme
Court Rules, 2013.
List of Keywords
Land acquisition; Subsequent change of law; Contradictory judicial
opinions; Law re-interpreted; Re-interpretation of law; Subsequent
overruling of a judgement; Limitation; Condonation of delay;
Sufficient cause for condonation of delay; Compensation deposited
in the treasury; Possession not taken; Compensation not paid; Nonpayment of compensation; Non-taking of possession; Acquisition
proceedings declared to have lapsed; Period of limitation already
expired; Delay not justified; Condonation of delay on ground of public
interest; Sui generis; Deemed lapse of land acquisition proceedings;
Public infrastructure projects such as hospitals, schools, metro;
Public infrastructure projects built on acquired lands; Interest of the
public exchequer; Financial loss to the public exchequer; Balancing
public with private interest; Government entities; Equality before
law; Concealment; Suppression of material facts by landowners;
Detailed fact-finding inquiry; COVID-19 pandemic; condonation of
delay on account of COVID-19 pandemic; Condonation of delay
without issuing notice; Judgments interpreting law; Retrospectively;
Prospectively; Bona fide; Diligence.
1218
[2024] 5 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
Case Arising From
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Special Leave Petition(C) No.
26697 of 2019
From the Judgment and Order dated 14.11.2017 of the High Court of
Delhi at New Delhi in WPC No.4427 of 2016
With
SLP(C) No.31870 of 2018, SLP(C)No. 32417 of 2018, SLP(C)
No.22996 of 2015, C.A. No.1012 of 2017, SLP(C) No.3061-3062 of
2018, SLP(C) No. 3063-3064 of 2018, SLP (C) No. 3065-3066 of
2018, SLP(C) No. 3067-3068 of 2018, SLP(C) No. 3069-3070 of 2018,
SLP(C) No. 3043-3044 of 2018, SLP(C) No. 3047-3048 of 2018,
SLP(C) No. 3052-3053 of 2018, SLP(C) No. 3054-3055 of 2018,
SLP(C) No. 3056-3057 of 2018, SLP(C) No. 3058-3059 of 2018,
SLP(C) No. 740 of 2018, SLP(C) No. 2877 of 2018, SLP(C) No. 16349
of 2018, SLP(C) No. 12600 of 2019, SLP(C) No. 2259 of 2020, Diary
No. 28682 of 2021, M.A. No.45 of 2023, In C.A. No.8649 of 2016,
SLP (C) No.3071-3072 of 2018, SLP (C) No.738 of 2018, SLP (C)
No.2876 of 2018, SLP (CIVIL) No. 2878 of 2018, SLP (C) No.5818
of 2018, Diary No. 8523 of 2018, SLP (C) No.16350 of 2018, SLP (C)
No.16351 of 2018, SLP (C) No.16352 of 2018, SLP (C) No.16353 of
2018, SLP (C) No.16016 of 2021, SLP (C) No.28439 of 2018, SLP
(C) No. 30446 of 2018, Diary No.28683 of 2021, SLP (C) No.30102
of 2018, SLP (C) No.30103 of 2018, SLP (C) No.31862 of 2018, SLP
(C) No.31868 of 2018, SLP (C) No.31869 of 2018, SLP (C) No.32414
of 2018, SLP (C) No.32415 of 2018, SLP (C) No.32416 of 2018, SLP
(C) No.394 of 2019, SLP (C) No.9059 of 2019, SLP (C) No.7948 of
2019, SLP (C) No.7950 of 2019, SLP (C) No.7949 of 2019, SLP (C)
No.9061 of 2019, MA No. 1268 of 2019 In R.P. (C) 406 of 2017 In CA
No. 8674 of 2016, Diary No.21692 of 2019, SLP (C) No.21759 of
2019, SLP (C) No.20908 of 2019, SLP (C) No.20798 of 2019, SLP
(C) No.22808 of 2019, SLP (C) No.22847 of 2019, SLP (C) No.22859
of 2019, SLP (C) No.22849 of 2019, SLP (C) No.22860 of 2019, SLP
(C) No.22851 of 2019, SLP (C) No.22862 of 2019, SLP (C) No.22863
of 2019, SLP (C) No.22864 of 2019, SLP (C) No.22865 of 2019, SLP
(C) No.22853 of 2019, SLP (C) No.22854 of 2019, SLP (C) No.22855
of 2019, SLP (C) No.29190 of 2019, SLP (C) No.29191 of 2019, SLP
(C) No.29192 of 2019, SLP (C) No.24781 of 2019, MA No. 1267 of
[2024] 5 S.C.R.
1219
Delhi Development Authority v. Tejpal & Ors.
2019 In R.P.(C)No.411 of 2017 In C.A. No. 8726 of 2016, MA No.
2622 of 2019 In R.P.(C) No.405 of 2017 In C.A. No. 8906 of 2016,
Diary No. 45820 of 2019, Diary No. 45830 of 2019, SLP(C) No.4251
of 2020, MA No. 804 of 2020 In Diary No. 8569 of 2019, MA No.629
of 2020 In Diary No. 8538 of 2019, MA No. 627 of 2020 In Diary No.
8550 of 2019, MA No. 628 of 2020 In Diary No.21269 of 2019, MA
700 of 2020 In Diary No. 8562 of 2019, SLP(C) No. 14308 of 2020,
Diary No. 23683 of 2020, Diary No. 24250 of 2020, Diary No. 24253
of 2020, Diary No. 24368 of 2020, Diary No. 24491 of 2020, Diary
No. 24494 of 2020, Diary No. 24367 of 2020, Diary No. 28960 of
2020, Diary No. 28985 of 2020, Diary No.118 of 2021, Diary No. 1698
of 2021, Diary No.2001 of 2021, Diary No. 2927 of 2021, Diary
No.4276 of 2021, Diary No. 7862 of 2021, Diary No. 9555 of 2021,
Diary No. 10043 of 2021, SLP(C) No. 16015 of 2021, Diary No. 17877
of 2021, Diary No. 26605 of 2021, Diary No. 28686 of 2021, Diary
No. 29096 of 2021, SLP(C) No. 16348 of 2018, SLP(C) No.26088 of
2018, SLP(C) No. 26089 of 2018, SLP(C) No. 26393 of 2018, SLP(C)
No. 31309 of 2018, SLP(C) No.10154 of 2019, SLP(C)No.2260 of
2020, Diary No. 22128 of 2021, Diary No. 26601 of 2021, Diary No.
26687 of 2021, Diary No. 28978 of 2021, Diary No. 29094 of 2021,
Diary No. 3096 of 2022, Diary No. 10284 of 2022, Diary No.11493 of
2022, Diary No. 12203 of 2022, Diary No. 12377 of 2022, Diary No.
12659 of 2022, Diary No. 12924 of 2022, SLP(C) No.20209 of 2018,
SLP(C) No. 20206 of 2018, SLP(C)No. 20207 of 2018, SLP(C)
No.21273 of 2018, SLP(C)No. 22115 of 2018, SLP(C) No.28438 of
2018, SLP(C) No.28440 of 2018, SLP(C) No.29159 of 2018, SLP(C)
No.32932 of 2018, SLP(C) No.6457 of 2019, SLP(C) No.11170 of
2019, Diary No. 17118 of 2021, SLP(C) No. 21608 of 2022, Diary No.
11765 of 2022, Diary No. 19545 of 2022, SLP(C) No. 18608 of 2022,
MA No.46 of 2023 In RP Diary No. 20336 of 2019, In CA No. 8649 of
2016, Diary No. 501 of 2023, Diary No. 15687 of 2022, Diary No.
21004 of 2022, Diary No. 21033 of 2022, Diary No.21052 of 2022,
Diary No. 27935 of 2022, Diary No. 27959 of 2022, M.A. Diary No.
37562 of 2022 In RP Diary No. 23724 of 2019 In CA No. 8654 of 2016,
M.A. Diary No. 40294 of 2022 In CA No.8926 of 2016, M.A. Diary No.
40305 of 2022 In CA No. 11818 of 2016, M.A. Diary No. 40310 of
2022 In RP 1017 of 2017 In CA No. 11818 of 2016, M.A. Diary No.
40767 of 2022 In RP Diary No. 45469 of 2019 In CA No. 8926 of 2016,
M.A. Diary No. 40773 of 2022 In CA No.6230 of 2017, M.A. Diary No.
1220
[2024] 5 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
446 of 2023 In CA No.6262 of 2017, M.A. Diary No. 522 of 2023 In
CA No. 8895 of 2016, M.A. Diary No. 541 of 2023 In Diary No. 5020
of 2020, M.A. Diary No. 11554 of 2023 In C.A. No. 10747 of 2016,
M.A. Diary No. 4743 of 2023 In RP Diary No. 2715 of 2021 In SLP(C)
No.13650 of 2016, Diary No. 5385 of 2023, SLP(C) No. 3259 of
2019,SLP(C) No.22434 of 2019, Diary No. 20223 of 2021, Diary No.
2 of 2022, Diary No. 2588 of 2022, M.A. Diary No. 39883 of 2022 In
CA No. 6259 of 2017, M.A. Diary No. 42742 of 2022 In RP Diary No.
17062 of 2019 In CA No.6187 of 2017, M.A. Diary No. 42745 of 2022
In CA No.6187 of 2017, M.A. Diary No. 411 of 2023 In CA No.6187
of 2017, M.A. Diary No. 1015 of 2023 In RP Diary No. 25698 of 2020
In CA No. 8711 of 2016, M.A. Diary No. 1460 of 2023 In RP Diary No.
21372 of 2019 In CA No.6269 of 2017, M.A. Diary No. 1464 of 2023
In RP Diary No. 24205 of 2019 In CA No.6247 of 2017, M.A. Diary
No. 1466 of 2023 In Diary No. 38548 of 2019, M.A. Diary No. 4091
of 2023 In Diary No.4904 of 2020, M.A. Diary No. 4510 of 2023 In
SLP(C) No. 13650 of 2016, M.A. Diary No. 4990 of 2023 In Diary
No.32548 of 2021, M.A. Diary No. 6523 of 2023 In Diary No.27181
of 2021, M.A. Diary No. 6524 of 2023 In Diary No.4221 of 2022, M.A.
Diary No. 10561 of 2023 In Diary No. 14138 of 2022, Diary No. 24674
of 2022, Diary No. 724 of 2023, MA No.1626 of 2023 In Diary No.9024
of 2019, M.A. Diary No. 1137 of 2023 In C.A. No. 8689 of 2016, Diary
No. 3958 of 2023, Diary No. 8250 of 2023, Diary No. 11257 of 2023,
MA No.1643 of 2023 In R.P.(C) No.556 of 2017 In C.A. No.8477 of
2016, Diary No. 11591 of 2023, Diary No. 12025 of 2023, Diary No.
12338 of 2023, M.A. Diary No. 12639 of 2023, M.A. Diary No. 12978
of 2023, M.A. Diary No. 13159 of 2023, Diary No. 13549 of 2023,
Diary No. 14584 of 2023, M.A. Diary No. 14601 of 2023, Diary No.
14703 of 2023, M.A. Diary No. 14854 of 2023, Diary No. 15173 of
2023, Diary No. 15177 of 2023, Diary No. 15266 of 2023, Diary No.
8581 of 2022, Diary No. 10729 of 2023, Diary No. 11587 of 2023,
Diary No. 11597 of 2023, Diary No. 13594 of 2023, Diary No. 13738
of 2023, Diary No. 13991 of 2023, Diary No. 14018 of 2023, Diary
No. 14075 of 2023, Diary No. 15542 of 2023, Diary No. 15544 of
2023, Diary No. 15550 of 2023, Diary No. 15557 of 2023, Diary No.
15806 of 2023, Diary No. 15812 of 2023, Diary No. 15815 of 2023,
Diary No. 15819 of 2023, Diary No. 16246 of 2023, Diary No. 16723
of 2023, Diary No. 16975 of 2023, Diary No. 17063 of 2023, Diary
No. 17124 of 2023, Diary No. 17208 of 2023, Diary No. 17829 of
[2024] 5 S.C.R.
1221
Delhi Development Authority v. Tejpal & Ors.
2023, Diary No. 22888 of 2022, Diary No. 27992 of 2022, Diary No.
28055 of 2022, Diary No. 28446 of 2022, Diary No. 32409 of 2022,
M.A. Diary No. 11767 of 2023 In Diary No. 27340 of 2019, Diary No.
14692 of 2023, Diary No. 14751 of 2023, Diary No. 14789 of 2023,
Diary No. 14797 of 2023, Diary No. 14860 of 2023, Diary No. 15284
of 2023, Diary No. 15286 of 2023, Diary No. 15531 of 2023, Diary
No. 15535 of 2023, Diary No. 15558 of 2023, Diary No. 15805 of
2023, Diary No. 17832 of 2023, Diary No. 18111 of 2023, Diary No.
18183 of 2023, Diary No. 18684 of 2023, Diary No. 19217 of 2023,
Diary No. 19983 of 2023, Diary No. 21126 of 2023, Diary No. 21535
of 2023, SLP(C) No. 3041-3042 of 2018, SLP(C) No. 2272 of 2019,
SLP(C) No. 6568 of 2020, Diary No. 29182 of 2021, Diary No. 30749
of 2021, Diary No. 23688 of 2022, Diary No. 25278 of 2022, Diary
No. 32408 of 2022, Diary No. 37246 of 2022, M.A. Diary No. 2556 of
2023, M.A. Diary No. 2941 of 2023, Diary No. 4587 of 2023, MA
No.1642 of 2023 In C.A. No. 8477 of 2016, Diary No. 12373 of 2023,
Diary No. 12955 of 2023, Diary No. 13544 of 2023, Diary No. 14180
of 2023, Diary No. 17211 of 2023, Diary No. 18682 of 2023, Diary
No. 19084 of 2023, SLP(C) No. 8775 of 2016, Diary No. 20119 of
2023, Diary No. 21669 of 2023, Diary No. 21997 of 2023, Diary No.
22457 of 2023, Diary No. 22486 of 2023, Diary No. 22524 of 2023,
CIVIL APPEAL No. 8565 of 2016, Diary No. 29314 of 2022, Diary No.
30121 of 2022, Diary No. 38953 of 2022, Diary No. 39904 of 2022,
Diary No. 102 of 2023, M.A. No. 1761 of 2023 In CIVIL APPEAL No.
8911 of 2016, M.A. Diary No. 1465 of 2023 In Diary No. 30311 of
2021, M.A. Diary No. 4083 of 2023 In CA 8917 of 2016, M.A. Diary
No. 4086 of 2023 In Diary No. 16897 of 2019, M.A. Diary No. 4242
of 2023 In Diary No. 32658 of 2021, Diary No. 8141 of 2023, M.A.
Diary No. 10980 of 2023 In CA NO 9287 of 2022, M.A. Diary No.11562
of 2023 In CA NO 8637 of 2016, M.A. Diary No. 12740 of 2023 In
Diary No. NO 9299 of 2019, M.A. Diary No.13420 of 2023 In CA NO
6227 of 2017, M.A. Diary No. 13541 of 2023 In CA NO 8525 of 2016,
M.A. No. 1722 of 2023 In CA No. 8537 of 2016, Diary No. 14869 of
2023, Diary No. 17744 of 2023, Diary No. 21344 of 2023, CIVIL
APPEAL NO 5539 of 2017, R.P.(C)No.1882 of 2017, In CIVIL APPEAL
No. 8705 of 2016, R.P.(C)No.1637 of 2017, In CIVIL APPEAL No.
11581 of 2016, R.P.(C)No.1113 of 2018, In CIVIL APPEAL No. 9899
of 2016, R.P.(C)No.2438 of 2017, In CIVIL APPEAL No. 8924 of 2016,
R.P. Diary No. 6303 of 2018 In CA NO 6183 of 2017, R.P. Diary No.
1222
[2024] 5 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
18945 of 2018 In CA NO 6235 of 2017, SLP(C) No. 20202 of 2018,
SLP(C) No. 21275 of 2018, SLP(C) No. 29144 of 2018, Diary No.
29714 of 2018, R.P. Diary No. 35922 of 2018 In CA 6263 of 2017,
SLP(C) No. 30454 of 2018, R.P. Diary No. 26490 of 2019 In CA 9031
of 2016, SLP(C) No. 2463 of 2020, M.A Diary No. 37093 of 2022 In
CA NO 8654 of 2016, M.A D. NO 40963 of 2022 In Diary No. NO 5204
of 2020, M.A Diary No. 515 of 2023 In CA NO 8711 of 2016, M.A Diary
No. 527 of 2023 In CA NO 8617 of 2016, M.A. No. 1625 of 2023 In
CIVIL APPEAL No. 8584 of 2016, M.A Diary No. 4967 of 2023 In Diary
No. 7759 of 2022, M.A Diary No. 12592 of 2023 In Diary No. 10856
of 2022, M.A Diary No. 12635 of 2023 In CA No.8154 of 2016, M.A
Diary No. 13155 of 2023 In CA No. 8663 of 2016, M.A Diary No. 13323
of 2023 In RP No. 387 of 2017, M.A Diary No. 13153 of 2023, M.A
Diary No. 700 of 2020, M.A Diary No. 14845 of 2023 In CA No. 8560
of 2016, M.A Diary No. 22699 of 2023 In CA No. 12249 of 2016, M.A
Diary No. 24734 of 2023 In Diary No. 26345 of 2020, SLP(C) No.
36423 of 2016, SLP(C) No. 3825 of 2017, SLP(C) No. 20210 of 2018,
SLP(C) No. 28442 of 2018, SLP(C) No. 31861 of 2018, SLP(C) No.
4399 of 2019, Diary No. 1456 of 2019, SLP(C) No. 5812 of 2019,
SLP(C) No. 5347 of 2019, SLP(C) No. 15081 of 2019, SLP(C) No.
4077 of 2020, Diary No. 2407 of 2022, M.A Diary No. 12238 of 2022
In RP(C) 400 of 2017, SLP(C) No. 17053 of 2022, M.A Diary No. 668
of 2023 In SLP(C) NO 30141 of 2015, M.A Diary No. 1001 of 2023
In Diary No. 23340 of 2018, M.A Diary No. 1136 of 2023 In Diary No.
30020 of 2019, M.A Diary No. 1291 of 2023 In Diary No. NO 29016
of 2021, M.A Diary No. 2121 of 2023 In RP NO 2163 of 2018, M.A
Diary No. 3578 of 2023 In Diary No. NO 32559 of 2021, M.A Diary
No. 4477 of 2023 In Diary No. NO 24053 of 2019, M.A Diary No.
14353 of 2023 In CA NO 4580 of 2016, M.A Diary No. 23142 of 2023
In Diary No. NO 15269 of 2021, SLP(C) No. 584 of 2017, M.A Diary
No. 17789 of 2017 In SLP(C) No. 14715 of 2016, SLP(C) No. 20205
of 2018, SLP(C) No. 20459 of 2018, SLP(C) No. 29157 of 2018,
SLP(C) No. 32412 of 2018, SLP(C) No. 14576 of 2019, SLP(C) No.
15071 of 2019, SLP(C) No. 4073 of 2020, M.A. No. 626 of 2020 In
Diary No. 8542 of 2019, Diary No. 9841 of 2022, Diary No. 10218 of
2022, Diary No. 23770 of 2022, M.A Diary No. 41774 of 2022 In CA
No. 8562 of 2016, M.A Diary No. 41777 of 2022 In Diary No. 22936
of 2021, M.A Diary No. 42064 of 2022 In CA No. 8685 of 2016, M.A
Diary No. 42071 of 2022 In Diary No.1090 of 2020, M.A Diary No.
[2024] 5 S.C.R.
1223
Delhi Development Authority v. Tejpal & Ors.
42406 of 2022 In Diary No. 14203 of 2019, M.A Diary No. 42459 of
2022 In CA No. 8651 of 2016, M.A Diary No. 402 of 2023 In Diary No.
27346 of 2019, M.A. No. 1647 of 2023 In CIVIL APPEAL No. 8566 of
2016, M.A Diary No. 3484 of 2023 In CA No. 8530 of 2016, M.A Diary
No. 4367 of 2023 In Diary No. 2379 of 2021, M.A Diary No. 11686 of
2023 In Diary No. 9844 of 2022, M.A Diary No. 11706 of 2023 In Diary
No. 38549 of 2019, M.A Diary No. 14289 of 2023 In CA No. 8493 of
2016, SLP(C) No. 28277 of 2016, SLP(C) No. 20203 of 2018, SLP(C)
No. 30451 of 2018, SLP(C) No. 29611 of 2018, SLP(C) No. 29825 of
2018, SLP(C) No. 4398 of 2019, SLP(C) No. 7945 of 2019, SLP(C)
No. 10386 of 2019, Diary No. 19172 of 2019, M.A. No. 2327 of 2019
In R.P.(C)No. 401 of 2017 In CIVIL APPEAL No. 8541 of 2016, Diary
No. 41950 of 2019, Diary No. 7191 of 2018, SLP(C) No. 4110 of 2020,
SLP(C) No. 4114 of 2020, SLP(C) No. 4895 of 2020, Diary No. 1558
of 2020, Diary No. 22256 of 2021, Diary No. 22630 of 2021, Diary
No. 24734 of 2021, Diary No. 28767 of 2021, Diary No. 18034 of
2022, Diary No. 24353 of 2022, SLP(C) No. 8797 of 2016, SLP(C)
No. 8761 of 2016, SLP(C) No. 8768 of 2016, SLP(C) No. 5910 of
2016, SLP(C) No. 8776 of 2016, SLP(C) No. 8766 of 2016, CIVIL
APPEAL No. 5538 of 2017, SLP(C) No. 4873 of 2018, SLP(C) No.
16251 of 2018, SLP(C) No. 28219 of 2018, SLP(C) No. 8323 of 2019,
M.A.No. 1416 of 2019 In R.P.(C)No.551 of 2017 In C.A. No. 508 of
2016, M.A. No. 611 of 2020 In Diary No. 8552 of 2019, Diary No. 6926
of 2020, Diary No. 13525 of 2022, Diary No. 31393 of 2021, Diary
No. 31839 of 2021, Diary No. 1359 of 2022, Diary No. 2441 of 2022,
Diary No. 15864 of 2023, SLP(C) No. 21557 of 2018, SLP(C) No.
30445 of 2018, SLP(C) No. 14565 of 2019, Diary No. 24244 of 2020,
Diary No. 24247 of 2020, Diary No. 9458 of 2021, Diary No. 21978
of 2022, Diary No. 27649 of 2022, Diary No. 39067 of 2022, Diary
No. 937 of 2023, Diary No. 1204 of 2023, Diary No. 9194 of 2023,
Diary No. 11258 of 2023, Diary No. 12596 of 2023, Diary No. 14064
of 2023, Diary No. 30619 of 2023, Diary No. 31083 of 2023, Diary
No. 31971 of 2023, Diary No. 31977 of 2023, Diary No. 31982 of
2023, M.A. No. 525 of 2020 In Diary No.8541 of 2019, Diary No.
19652 of 2022, Diary No. 28063 of 2022, Diary No. 29641 of 2022,
Diary No. 29697 of 2022, Diary No. 31979 of 2022, Diary No. 35924
of 2022, Diary No. 38890 of 2022, Diary No. 39310 of 2022, Diary
No. 41084 of 2022, Diary No. 41445 of 2022, Diary No. 41703 of
2022, Diary No. 42045 of 2022, Diary No. 77 of 2023, M.A. No. 1931
1224
[2024] 5 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
of 2023 In SLP(C)No.6367 of 2016, Diary No. 4841 of 2023, Diary
No. 6339 of 2023, Diary No. 12327 of 2023, Diary No. 12328 of 2023,
Diary No. 12331 of 2023, Diary No. 13357 of 2023, Diary No. 20490
of 2023, SLP(C) No. 3743 of 2019, Diary No. 8804 of 2020, Diary No.
25769 of 2020, Diary No. 41531 of 2022, Diary No. 42660 of 2022,
Diary No. 3079 of 2023, Diary No. 3747 of 2023, Diary No. 15734 of
2023, Diary No. 21224 of 2023, Diary No. 21946 of 2023, Diary No.
30089 of 2023, Diary No. 31074 of 2023, Diary No. 31966 of 2023,
Diary No. 31968 of 2023, Diary No. 31969 of 2023, Diary No. 31974
of 2023, Diary No. 32234 of 2023, Diary No. 32665 of 2023, Diary
No. 32916 of 2023, Diary No. 33172 of 2023, SLP(C) No. 33345 of
2015, Diary No. 39526 of 2017, R.P.(C)No.1 of 2018 In CIVIL APPEAL
No. 2980 of 2017, Diary No. 7178 of 2018, Diary No. 7195 of 2018,
SLP(C) No. 228 of 2019, Diary No. 10266 of 2019, Diary No. 15896
of 2019, Diary No. 21134 of 2020, Diary No. 22116 of 2020, Diary No.
762 of 2022, Diary No. 15572 of 2022, Diary No. 13481 of 2023, Diary
No. 15001 of 2023, Diary No. 15004 of 2023, Diary No. 15543 of
2023, Diary No. 15738 of 2023, Diary No. 19215 of 2023, Diary No.
27410 of 2023, Diary No. 33206 of 2023, Diary No. 7167 of 2018,
Diary No. 7174 of 2018, Diary No. 7184 of 2018, Diary No. 8479 of
2018, SLP(C) No. 2034 of 2019, SLP(C) No. 12894 of 2019, Diary
No. 8454 of 2021, Diary No. 21831 of 2021, Diary No. 21920 of 2021,
Diary No. 29643 of 2021, Diary No. 9201 of 2022, Diary No. 10476
of 2022, Diary No. 10477 of 2022, Diary No. 14597 of 2022, Diary
No. 15623 of 2022, Diary No. 29310 of 2022, Diary No. 29650 of
2022, Diary No. 37815 of 2022, SLP(C) No. 8791 of 2016, SLP(C)
No. 8773 of 2016, SLP(C) No. 28212 of 2018, SLP(C) No. 29614 of
2018, SLP(C) No. 1382 of 2019, SLP(C) No. 395 of 2019, SLP(C)
No. 12155 of 2019, SLP(C) No. 12601 of 2019, SLP(C) No. 22131
of 2019, SLP(C) No. 22412 of 2019, Diary No. 41709 of 2019, Diary
No. 4034 of 2020, Diary No. 24631 of 2020, Diary No. 15170 of 2021,
Diary No. 30585 of 2021, Diary No. 1377 of 2022, Diary No. 12518
of 2022, Diary No. 21072 of 2022, Diary No. 29678 of 2022, Diary
No. 3283 of 2023, M.A. No. 381 of 2023 In Diary No. 14790 of 2022,
SLP(C) No. 15346 of 2015, SLP(C) No. 4299 of 2017, SLP(C) No.
4155 of 2017, SLP(C) No. 19817 of 2018, Diary No. 28634 of 2018,
SLP(C) No. 30101 of 2018, SLP(C) No. 14569 of 2019, Diary No.
21380 of 2019, SLP(C) No. 5308 of 2020, Diary No. 4029 of 2020,
SLP(C) No. 14851 of 2020, Diary No. 14829 of 2021, Diary No. 26604
[2024] 5 S.C.R.
1225
Delhi Development Authority v. Tejpal & Ors.
of 2021, Diary No. 29548 of 2021, Diary No. 29803 of 2021, Diary
No. 27923 of 2022, Diary No. 27975 of 2022, Diary No. 27989 of
2022, Diary No. 42036 of 2022, SLP(C) No. 8758 of 2016, SLP(C)
No. 4298 of 2017, SLP(C) No. 22691 of 2018, SLP(C) No. 20458 of
2018, Diary No. 26635 of 2018, Diary No. 21381 of 2019, Diary No.
21382 of 2019, Diary No. 27464 of 2019, Diary No. 7493 of 2020,
Diary No. 8470 of 2020, Diary No. 28956 of 2020, Diary No. 28987
of 2020, Diary No. 28988 of 2020, Diary No. 28993 of 2020, Diary
No. 29070 of 2020, Diary No. 1894 of 2021, Diary No. 29032 of 2021,
Diary No. 29097 of 2021, SLP(C) No. 13046 of 2022, Diary No. 5024
of 2022, Diary No. 7087 of 2022, Diary No. 9433 of 2022, Diary No.
13505 of 2022, Diary No. 20620 of 2022, Diary No. 38278 of 2022,
SLP(C) No. 23373 of 2018, SLP(C) No. 23369 of 2018, SLP(C) No.
8320 of 2019, SLP(C) No. 14573 of 2019, SLP(C) No. 5509 of 2020,
SLP(C) No. 26698 of 2019, SLP(C) No. 27211 of 2019, SLP(C) No.
10674 of 2020, SLP(C) No. 937 of 2020, SLP(C) No. 947 of 2020,
Diary No. 17418 of 2021, Diary No. 17613 of 2021, Diary No. 18136
of 2021, Diary No. 19415 of 2021, Diary No. 29111 of 2021, Diary No.
12519 of 2022, SLP(C) No. 14207 of 2022, Diary No. 28059 of 2022,
Diary No. 4601 of 2023, Diary No. 7087 of 2023, Diary No. 35484 of
2023, SLP(C) No. 10169 of 2016, SLP(C) No. 3060 of 2018, SLP(C)
No. 27689 of 2018, SLP(C) No. 25394 of 2018, Diary No. 21739 of
2019, Diary No. 21741 of 2019, Diary No. 22098 of 2019, SLP(C) No.
2264 of 2020, SLP(C) No. 4923 of 2020, Diary No. 21888 of 2020,
SLP(C) No. 11135 of 2023, Diary No. 15399 of 2021, Diary No. 29098
of 2021, Diary No. 30583 of 2021, Diary No. 381 of 2022, Diary No.
1564 of 2022, SLP(C) No. 18861 of 2023, Diary No. 20979 of 2022,
Diary No. 4860 of 2023, Diary No. 5564 of 2023, Diary No. 7061 of
2023, Diary No. 7292 of 2023, Diary No. 7350 of 2023, SLP(C) No.
8769 of 2016, SLP(C) No. 8765 of 2016, SLP(C) No. 22259 of 2018,
SLP(C) No. 24080 of 2018, SLP(C) No. 22688 of 2018, SLP(C) No.
11164 of 2019, SLP(C) No. 22340 of 2019, SLP(C) No. 18 of 2020,
SLP(C) No. 21758 of 2019, SLP(C) No. 14776 of 2020, SLP(C) No.
12692 of 2020, SLP(C) No. 14777 of 2020, SLP(C) No. 6519 of 2020,
Diary No. 22560 of 2020, Diary No. 53 of 2021, Diary No. 26807 of
2021, Diary No. 28547 of 2021, Diary No. 29668 of 2021, Diary No.
30377 of 2021, SLP(C) No. 14200 of 2022, Diary No. 20986 of 2022,
Diary No. 28053 of 2022, Diary No. 28449 of 2022, Diary No. 3365
of 2023, Diary No. 7291 of 2023, Diary No. 10704 of 2023, M.A. Diary
1226
[2024] 5 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
No. 12526 of 2023 In C.A. No. 8703 of 2016, Diary No. 8526 of 2018,
SLP(C) No. 20204 of 2018, SLP(C) No. 29831 of 2018, SLP(C) No.
4400 of 2019, SLP(C) No. 22033 of 2019, SLP(C) No. 702 of 2020,
SLP(C) No. 3420 of 2020, SLP(C) No. 3989 of 2020, Diary No. 45825
of 2019, SLP(C) No. 3991 of 2020, Diary No. 46004 of 2019, SLP(C)
No. 14870 of 2020, Diary No. 57 of 2020, Diary No.28141 of 2021,
Diary No. 3172 of 2022, Diary No. 4265 of 2023, Diary No. 5017 of
2023, Diary No. 13554 of 2023, Diary No. 14069 of 2023, Diary No.
15816 of 2023, Diary No. 35480 of 2023, Diary No. 35488 of 2023,
Diary No.7188 of 2018, Diary No. 34804 of 2023, Diary No. 13552 of
2023, Diary No.38406 of 2023, Diary No. 40386 of 2023, Diary No.
28110 of 2021, SLP(C) No.16233 of 2018, SLP(C) No.10946 of 2019,
SLP(C) No.3407 of 2020, Diary No.13368 of 2023, Diary No.14006
of 2023, SLP(C) No.7909 of 2023, Diary No.6123 of 2023, SLP(C)
No.10384 of 2019, SLP(C) No.10948 of 2019, Diary No.4531 of 2023,
SLP(C) No.1928 of 2020, SLP(C) No.28645 of 2019, Diary No.46016
of 2019, SLP(C) No.6029 of 2020, Diary No.41008 of 2023, Diary
No.41349 of 2023, Diary No.17929 of 2022, Diary No.14745 of 2023,
Diary No.39704 of 2023, Diary No.3760 of 2022, Diary No.37530 of
2023, Diary No.38004 of 2023, Diary No.38009 of 2023, Diary
No.38633 of 2023, Diary No.40192 of 2023, Diary No.21006 of 2022,
Diary No.39771 of 2023, Diary No.36156 of 2023, Diary No.38635 of
2023, Diary No.38874 of 2023, Diary No.39775 of 2023, Diary
No.41675 of 2023, SLP(C) No. 815 of 2020, SLP(C) No. 13889 of
2022, SLP(C) No. 13933 of 2022, SLP(C) No. 13774 of 2022, M.A.
Diary No. 5141 of 2023 In R.P.(C) No. 385 of 2017, M.A. Diary No.
5463 of 2023 In Diary No. 10069 of 2021, M.A. Diary No. 6510 of
2023 In Diary No. 29149 of 2021, M.A. Diary No. 6515 of 2023 In
Diary No. 20488 of 2019, M.A. Diary No. 9591 of 2023 In C.A. No.
8515 of 2016, M.A. Diary No. 10339 of 2023 In Diary No. 20913 of
2021, M.A. Diary No. 10553 of 2023 In C.A. No. 8519 of 2016, M.A.
Diary No. 12548 of 2023 In Diary No. 5670 of 2022, M.A. Diary No.
12549 of 2023 In C.A. No. 9600 of 2016, M.A. Diary No. 13254 of
2023 In Diary No. 20588 of 2019, M.A. Diary No. 21716 of 2023 In
Diary No. 14110 of 2021, M.A. Diary No. 21786 of 2023 In C.A. No.
8648 of 2016, M.A. Diary No. 27415 of 2023 In C.A. No. 1616 of 2023,
M.A. Diary No. 31028 of 2023 In C.A. No. 8555 of 2016, M.A. Diary
No. 33298 of 2023 In C.A. No. 8697 of 2016, M.A. Diary No. 34776
of 2023 In Diary No. 41760 of 2018, M.A. Diary No. 34835 of 2023
[2024] 5 S.C.R.
1227
Delhi Development Authority v. Tejpal & Ors.
In C.A. No. 8624 of 2016, Diary No.35093 of 2023, M.A. Diary No.
37258 of 2023 In C.A. No. 8632 of 2016, M.A. Diary No. 38181 of
2023, Diary No.27769 of 2022 AND M.A. No.1919 of 2023 In C.A.
No.397 of 2023
Appearances for Parties
Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, K.M. Nataraj, Vikramjeet Banerjee, A.S.Gs.,
Kailash Vasdev, Sanjay Poddar, Sanjeev Sen, Ms. Rachna Shrivastva,
Ravinder Sethi, Gopal Sankaranarayanan, Sanjay Parikh, Jayant
Mehta, Neeraj Kumar Jain, Manan Kumar Mishra, K. Ramakanth
Reddy, P.N. Mishra, U.K.