Supreme Court of India· 30 April 2026

Once a land acquisition has lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Fair Compensation Act, 2013 with finality, is the auction purchaser's possession of the land sine qua non for refund of the sale consideration?

RELIANCE EMINENT TRADING AND COMMERCIAL PRIVATE LIMITED v. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

2026 INSC 436 · Special Leave Petition (C) No. 22100 of 2025
Coram: J.K. Maheshwari

🔖 Save this judgment 🔔 Follow Order XIII-A, Code of Civil Proc…📬 Get today's judgments

View the original judgment PDFFree to read. To download it — or the LexStreak typeset copy with the headnote and Points of Law — create an account; downloads are part of the Pro plan.

Answer

No. Once the lapse of acquisition attains finality, possession is not sine qua non for refund; a defence premised on withholding refund pending return of possession is fanciful and discloses no triable issue.

Headnote

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — Order XIII-A — Commercial Courts Act, 2015 — Summary judgment — Fair Compensation Act, 2013 — s.24(2) — Lapse of acquisition — Refund — Article 142 — Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — Order XIII-A r.3 — 'real prospect of success' test — Held: Order XIII-A permits summary judgment only where a party has no real prospect of succeeding or defending a claim. The standard demands a likelihood that is real and substantial, not merely fanciful or arguable. (¶43, 51) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — Order XIII-A — nine-point guideline — no mini-trial — Held further: A court must ask whether either side lacks a real prospect of success without conducting a mini-trial, weighing evidence reasonably expected at trial. Nine non-exhaustive guidelines were laid down, urging courts to 'grasp the nettle' on neat points of law. (¶56, 59) Fair Compensation Act, 2013 — s.24(2) — lapse — possession not sine qua non for refund — Held further: Once the acquisition underlying the plot had lapsed under Section 24(2) with finality after dismissal of review and curative petitions, possession was not sine qua non for refund. Both the Authority's possession-based defence and its limitation plea were fanciful, raising no triable issue. (¶64, 66) Constitution of India, Art. 142 — restitution — refund with interest — conveyance deed set aside — Held further: Since the acquisition had lapsed with finality, the Court invoked Article 142 to set aside the registered Conveyance Deed and ordered refund of the entire consideration with interest reduced to 7.5% per annum. The appeal was allowed and the suit decreed accordingly. (¶80, 83)

In the Court's own words

Paragraph 64Although this argument of the respondent appears to be enticing, however the same has to be rejected for having no basis in law. The history of litigation clearly indicates that the question of lapse of acquisition has been conclusively put to rest by this Court in view of dismissal of the Curative Petition. The fact that acquisition has lapsed means that the situation as it existed before initiation of the land acquisition process has been brought back. There is nothing left for the respondent DDA to seek in the land. Legally, the implication of lapse of acquisition is that the title flows back to the erstwhile owner. But, the DDA has no interest to retain the same. Moreover, the order dated 04.05.2017 passed by this Court in Civil Appeal No. 6345 of 2017 was categorical that if the re-acquisition is not carried out in six months, then the possession be returned to the original owners i.e., Simla Devi and others.

Paragraph 66In light of the above, the High Court completely erred in reading the issue of refund as contingent to handing over of the possession. There is nothing in law or fact to show that possession is sine qua non for refund. The DDA is not able to dislodge the fact that the acquisition lapsed by orders of this Court. A necessary corollary is that refund has to be initiated for the auction purchaser. Further, there is no valid reason portrayed by the respondent to refuse refund or retain the amount any longer.

Acts & Sections

Order XIII-A, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (Commercial Courts Act, 2015)s.24(2) Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013Art. 142 Constitution of India

One judgment a day. That's the whole habit.

Read the full text of RELIANCE EMINENT TRADING AND COMMERCIAL PRIVATE LIMITED v. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY — and get the Supreme Court's output as a five-minute daily read, with plain-language headnotes and the questions each judgment settles.

Create my free account

Free forever plan · 30 seconds · data stays in India

Open the full judgment →

Also decided in this judgment

Under Order XIII-A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, what standard must a court apply before granting summary judgment in a commercial suit?Can the Supreme Court exercise its power under Article 142 of the Constitution to set aside a registered conveyance deed and order restitution when the underlying land acquisition has lapsed?

Plain-language answer prepared by the LexStreak Editorial Desk — verify against the judgment. Source: Supreme Court of India. Corrections