Supreme Court – Daily Orders
Savitri Devi Nagar vs State Of Uttar Pradesh on 23 February, 2026
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2026
[Arising out of SLP(C) No.33166/2025]
SAVITRI DEVI NAGAR & ORS. APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS. RESPONDENT(S)
WITH
CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2026
[Arising out of SLP(C) No. 37658/2025]
CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2026
[Arising out of SLP(C) No. 38027/2025]
CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2026
[Arising out of SLP(C) No.3523/2026]
CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2026
[Arising out of SLP(C) No.3277/2026]
O R D E R
1. Leave granted.
2. We have heard learned Senior Counsel on behalf of
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
ARJUN BISHT
Date: 2026.02.25
the appellants as well as learned Senior Counsel
16:49:22 IST
Reason:
representing the Ghaziabad Development Authority. The
1
High Court has through the impugned judgment elaborately
discussed the broad principles required to be followed in
the matter of acquisition of land, previously under the
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (since repealed) (in short,
the “1894 Act”) as well as implication of the provisions
of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in
Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act,
2013 (in short, the “2013 Act”). In this vein, the High
Court rightly held that it was not a case of such urgency
where Section 17 of the 1894 Act ought to have been
invoked.
3. Having identified such illegality in the
acquisition process and having considered the 2013 Act,
which, meanwhile, came into force, the High Court has
rightly held that the appellants are entitled to
compensation in accordance with the provisions of the
2013 Act. The High Court, however, has directed that the
relevant date for determining the compensation would be
01.01.2014, namely, the date on which the 2013 Act came
into force.
4. It seems to us that there has been a spate of
litigation across a Pan-India basis concerning the
interpretation of Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act, in terms
whereof, an acquisition made under the 1894 Act was
sought to be declared as having lapsed by virtue of a
deeming fiction. That provision has been the subject
2
matter of interpretation before this Court in a catena of
decisions. This resulted in complete uncertainty for the
Authorities and the owners regarding the legal status of
the acquisition process. Eventually, the controversy came
to be settled when a Constitution Bench of this Court in
Indore Development Authority vs. Manoharlal, (2020) 8 SCC
129, made a fresh construction of Section 24(2) of the
2013 Act.
5. It further seems that in the instant case, the writ
petitions were filed in 2005 or so, challenging the
acquisition of 2004. These writ petitions also remain
pending, owing to the prevailing legal uncertainty and
multiple doubts regarding the legality of the old
acquisition or its lapsing under 24(2) of the 2013 Act.
This uncertainty, having been resolved in 2019, we are of
the view that the description of the cut-off date for
determining compensation under the 2013 Act warrants a
revisit.
6. While such a date need not be brought out of the
hat, we are guided by the fact that the Constitution
Bench has already settled the controversy in the year
2020 or so. We, therefore, by invoking our powers under
Article 142 of the Constitution of India, hold that the
appellants are entitled to the determination of
compensation of the acquired land as on 01.01.2020 for
the purpose of passing an award in accordance with the
3
provisions of the 2013 Act.
7. In this view of the matter, paragraph 116(a) of the
impugned judgment dated 17.10.2025 of the High Court is
modified, and the appellants are, accordingly, held
entitled to compensation, the market value whereof shall
be determined as on 01.01.2020.
8. All these appeals stand disposed of in the above
terms.
9. We also deem it appropriate to further clarify that
the cut-off date evolved today, for the purpose of giving
benefits under the 2013 Act shall not create a new cause
of action for the land owners, whose matters have already
been settled at different levels. They shall not be
entitled to seek the reopening of the matters,
particularly those of the Delhi Acquisition or any other
acquisition process where the dates prior to 01.01.2020
have been fixed for the purpose of determining the
compensation amount.
10. In view of the above-stated modification in the
impugned judgment, which is likely to have some
significant financial implications, we extend the time
granted by the High Court to enable the Authorities to
take a final call within a period of six months from
today.
4
11. If the Authorities decide not to utilise the
acquired land within the extended period of six months,
the appellant shall be at liberty to seek revival of
these proceedings.
……………………..CJI.
(SURYA KANT)
………………………..J.
(JOYMALYA BAGCHI)
NEW DELHI;
FEBRUARY 23, 2026
5
ITEM NO.19 COURT NO.1 SECTION XI
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s).33166/2025
[Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 17-10-2025
in WRITC No.77647/2005 passed by the High Court of Judicature at
Allahabad]
SAVITRI DEVI NAGAR & ORS. Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS. Respondent(s)
(IA No. 293477/2025 – EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED
JUDGMENT, IA No. 293479/2025 – EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.)
WITH
SLP(C) No. 37658/2025 (XI)
IA No. 332484/2025 – EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.
SLP(C) No. 38027/2025 (XI)
IA No. 333235/2025 – EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.
SLP(C) No. 3523/2026 (XI)
IA No. 25140/2026 – EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.
SLP(C) No. 3277/2026 (XI)
IA No. 22533/2026 – EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED
JUDGMENT
Date : 23-02-2026 These matters were called on for hearing today.
CORAM : HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JOYMALYA BAGCHI
For Petitioner(s) :Mr. Aman Lekhi, Sr. Adv.
Ms. Anushruti, Adv.
Mr. Ravi Tyagi, AOR
Ms. Aanavi Oberai, Adv.
Ms. Snigdha Rajpal, Adv.
Mr. Akash Gupta, Adv.
Mr. Ankit Tyagi, Adv.
Mr. Haraprasad Sahu, Adv.
Mr. Shiv Kant Mishra, Adv.
Mr. Shivanand Pandey, Adv.
Mr. Santosh Sahoo, Adv.
Mr. Pranaya Kumar Mohapatra, AOR
6
Mr. Sanjay Jain, AOR
Mr. Amber Jain, Adv.
For Respondent(s) :Mr. Arijit Prasad, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Praveen Kumar Singh, Adv.
Mr. Gunnam Venkateswara Rao, AOR
Mr. C. Sanal Nambiar, Adv.
Ms. Abhinav Shailly, Adv.
Ms. Chetna Singh, Adv.
Mr. Shubham Mathur, Adv.
Ms. Devyani Mahra, Adv.
Mr. Ajay Kumar Mishra, Adv. Gen.
Mr. Shaurya Sahay, AOR
Mr. Aman Jaiswal, Adv.
Mrs. Anushka Sharda, Adv.
Ms. Raveena Rai, Adv.
Mr. Siddhant Grover, Adv.
M/s Khaitan & Co., AOR
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
1. Leave granted.
2. The appeals are disposed of in terms of the signed order.
3. All pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
(ARJUN BISHT) (PREETHI T.C.) ASTT. REGISTRAR-cum-PS ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
(signed order is placed on the file)
7
