Supreme Court asks DDA to ensure Kalindi Kunj metro pavement is not used by encroachers, vendors

The Supreme Court on Thursday directed the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) to ensure that a pavement near the Kalindi Kunj Metro Depot is not encroached on or used for unauthorised purposes. [Delhi Development Authority vs Jagan Singh and Ors].A bench of Justices Abhay S Oka and Sanjay Karol noted that the land had been acquired for a public purpose, yet a 'car clinic' and other vendors were using the pavement abutting the Metro depot.The Court took a critical view of such encroachment since citizens had lost valuable land so that the depot may be constructed. The pavement should only be used to allow people to walk, the Court said. “The compulsory acquisition has been made for a public purpose and therefore, the appellant and all the concerned authorities cannot allow the pavement to be used for any purpose except for allowing people to walk. We hope and trust that either the appellant takes immediate action in this behalf or calls upon the authorities empowered to take action to do the needful immediately in accordance with the law," the judgment stated. .The Court passed the order in an appeal filed by the DDA against a 2016 Delhi High Court judgment in a land acquisition case. .A landowner had moved the High Court to secure compensation under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 for the 2006 acquisition of his land. The High Court held that the land acquisition under the earlier 1894 Act had lapsed since the authorities had failed to pay the landowner full compensation. Hence, the High Court directed that the compensation be paid to the landowner under the 2013 Act.This was despite the Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Limited (DMRCL) having physical possession of the land in question..The Supreme Court allowed the DDA's appeal against the High Court verdict, after noting that, as per the Constitution Bench decision in Indore Development Authority, the 2013 Act was not applicable for physical acquisitions completed prior to its enactment. .Pertinently, the apex court also allowed the DDA’s application for condoning a 1231-day delay in filing the appeal, despite noting it was ‘casually drafted’. It reiterated that such condonations depend not on a rigid formula but on the facts and circumstances of each case..”The use of the land for public purposes for the last several years is certainly a relevant factor for adopting a liberal approach while considering the prayer for condoning the delay," the Court reasoned. .The Court proceeded to set aside the High Court order after imposing costs of ₹50,000 on DDA, to be paid to the landowner. The DDA was further directed to pay the original compensation award within one month, if not already paid. .Advocates Ashwani Kumar and Anshay Dhatwalia appeared for the DDA. Advocates Sujeeta Srivastava, Gagan Gupta, and Krishan Kumar appeared for the respondents..[Read Judgment]