Supreme Court of India
GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANR versus M/S. BEADS PROPERTIES PVT. LTD. & ORS. on 13 March 2023
234
SUPREME COURT REPORTS[2023] 2 S.C.R. 234
[2023] 2 S.C.R.
AGOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANR.
v.
M/S. BEADS PROPERTIES PVT. LTD. & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 1522 of 2023)
BMARCH 13, 2023
[M. R. SHAH AND C. T. RAVIKUMAR, JJ.]
Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in LandAcquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 – s.24(2) –High Court allowing the writ petition filed by respondent No.1, aCsubsequent purchaser declared that the acquisition w.r.t the land inquestion is deemed to have lapsed by virtue of s.24(2) – Whetherthe subsequent purchaser has locus to challenge the acquisition/lapsing of the acquisition – Held: No – Thus, the High Court erredin entertaining the writ petition preferred by the respondent No.1Dbeing a subsequent purchaser and particularly when the originalowners/recorded owners did not challenge the acquisition at all –There shall not be any deemed lapse of the acquisition proceedingsw.r.t the land in question – Impugned judgment is quashed and setaside.
EShiv Kumar & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors., (2019) 10SCC 229; Delhi Development Authority v. GodfreyPhillips (I) Ltd. & Ors., Civil Appeal No. 3073 of 2022– relied on.
Case Law Reference
F(2019) 10 SCC 229relied onPara 2.2
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1522of 2023.
From the Judgment and Order dated 24.08.2015 of the High CourtGof Delhi at New Delhi in WP (C) No. 6963 of 2014.
Atul Kumar, Mrs. Sweety Singh, Mrs. Archana Kumari, RahulPandey, Advs. for the Appellants.
Ms. Malvika Kapila, Ms. Tanwangi Shukla, Advs. for theRespondents.
H
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
M. R. SHAH, J.
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
1
Decisions referred to
In this index
1
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgmentand order passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi dated24.08.2015 in Writ Petition (C) No. 6963 of 2014 by which the HighCourt has allowed the said writ petition preferred by the respondent No.1 herein – original writ petitioner and has declared that the acquisitionwith respect to the land in question is deemed to have lapsed by virtue ofSection 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency inLand Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafterreferred to as “Act, 2013”), the Government of NCT of Delhi and Anr.have preferred the present appeal.
2. From the counter affidavit filed before the High Court, it wasthe specific case on behalf of the appellants / Land Acquisition collectorthat the recorded owners of the land in question are Parvati Jain, LajjaRam and D. L. Parti and since the recorded / original owners neverchallenge the acquisition proceedings, the original writ petitioner had noright to challenge the same. Even from the averments in the writ petitionand even according to the original writ petitioner, the original writ petitionerpurchased the land in question after the notification under Section 4 wasissued. At this stage, it is required to be noted that the notification underSection 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was issued on 25.11.1980and the declaration under Section 6 of the Act was made on 07.06.1985and the award under Section 11 of the Act, 1894 was published on09.07.1987.
2.1 From the averments in the writ petition (paragraph 3), theoriginal writ petitioner purchased the lands thereafter, i.e., in the year1990. Therefore, it was the case on behalf of the appellant before theHigh Court that the original writ petitioner being the subsequent purchaserhad no locus to challenge the acquisition / lapsing of the acquisition.Without adverting to on the aforesaid issue, the High Court has entertainedthe said writ petition and has allowed the same.
2.2 Whether the subsequent purchaser has a locus to challengethe acquisition / lapsing of the acquisition is now not res integra in viewof the decisions of this Court in the case of Shiv Kumar & Anr. Vs.Union of India & Ors., (2019) 10 SCC 229 and Delhi Development A
B
C
DE
FG
H
AAuthority Vs. Godfrey Phillips (I) Ltd. & Ors., Civil Appeal No.3073 of 2022.
2.3 In the aforesaid decisions and the other subsequent decisions,it is specifically observed and held that the subsequent purchaser has nolocus to challenge the acquisition / lapsing of the acquisition. Under theBcircumstances, the High Court has erred in entertaining the writ petitionpreferred by the respondent No.1 herein – original writ petitioner beinga subsequent purchaser and particularly when the original owners /recorded owners did not challenge the acquisition at all.
3. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, theCimpugned judgment and order passed by the High Court is herebyquashed and set aside. There shall not be any deemed lapse of theacquisition proceedings with respect to the land in question as observedand held by the High Court.
Present appeal is accordingly allowed. However, in the facts andDcircumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.
Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of.
E
Divya Pandey
(Assisted by : Abhishek Agnihotri and Shevali Monga, LCRAs)
Appeal allowed.
F
G
H