Case: Delhi Development Authority Vs. Krishan Kumar HUF &amp; Others

SLP (C) No.25536 of 2015 (Item No.18) andSLP (C) No.No.68)9. These are the Special Leave Petitions filed by DDA and Government of NCT of Delhi.

Reasoning: SLP (C) No.15346 of 2015 (Item No. 15)3. We are informed that despite vacation of stay in the year 2010, so far no compensation has been348 of 2015 (Itemstay, that is referred to in the affidavit, is in respect of another piece of land owned by the father of the first536 of 2015 (Item No.18) andSLP (C) No.We are afraid, such a contention is not available to the DDA/NCT. The stay should be in respect of the particularis seen from the additional documents filed by the first respondent that the purchase was after obtaining NOC from the competent authority in terms of Section 5 of The Delhi Land (Restrictions on Transfer) Act,535 of 2015 (Item No. 20)12. It is brought to the notice of this Court that there was no stay operating in respect of the land in question. The stay was in respect of the adjoining. 38290 of 2016 (Item No.the award had been passed. Therefore, nothing prevented the appellants from paying the compensation or taking possession.