GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI versus VIJAY GUPTA & ORS on 24 March 2023

1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgmentand order passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi dated06.08.2018 in Writ Petition (C) No. 9196 of 2015 by which the HighCCourt has allowed the said writ petition preferred by the contestingrespondents herein and has declared that the acquisition with respect tothe land in question is deemed to have lapsed by virtue of Section 24(2)of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition,Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as“Act, 2013”), the Government of NCT of Delhi has preferred the presentDappeal.

2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant hasvehemently submitted that it was the specific case on behalf of theappellant before the High Court that as the original writ petitioners beforethe High Court were the subsequent purchasers, they have no locus toEchallenge the acquisition / lapsing of acquisition. It is submitted that,however, despite the above objection, the High Court has entertainedthe writ petition at the instance of the subsequent purchasers and hasdeclared that the acquisition with respect to the land in question is deemedto have lapsed by virtue of Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013, relying uponthe decision of this Court in the case of Government (NCT of Delhi)FVs. Manav Dharam Trust and Anr., (2017) 6 SCC 751. It issubmitted that in view of the decision of this Court in the case of ShivKumar & Anr. Vs. Union of India & Ors., (2019) 10 SCC 229, thedecision in the case of Manav Dharam Trust and Anr. (supra) is nota good law. It is submitted that as observed and held by this Court in theGcase of Shiv Kumar & Anr. (supra) followed by this Court in thesubsequent decisions in the case of Delhi Development AuthorityVs. Godfrey Phillips (I) Ltd. & Ors., (2022) 8 SCC 771 and DelhiAdministration Thr. Secretary, Land and Building Department &Ors. Vs. Pawan Kumar & Ors., (2022) 7 SCC 470, a subsequent H

purchaser has no locus to challenge the acquisition and / or lapsing ofthe acquisition.

Making above submissions and relying upon the above decisions,it is prayed to allow the present appeal.

3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the contestingrespondents – original writ petitioners is not in a position to dispute thatthey had purchased the land in question subsequent to the acquisitionproceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Even, the learnedcounsel appearing on behalf of the original writ petitioners is not in aposition to point out any valid title deed. From the averments in the petitionbefore the High Court, it appears that the original writ petitioners claimedthe relief based on general power of attorney, will, receipt etc., which assuch cannot confer any title on the original writ petitioners.

4. Be that it may, the fact remains that the respondents can besaid to be subsequent purchasers. As per the law laid down by thisCourt in the case of Shiv Kumar & Anr. (supra), which has beensubsequently followed by this Court in the case of Godfrey Phillips (I)Ltd. & Ors. (supra) and Pawan Kumar & Ors. (supra) and even inother decisions, a subsequent purchaser has no locus to challenge theacquisition / lapsing of the acquisition. In that view of the matter, theHigh Court has materially erred in entertaining the writ petition preferredby the original writ petitioners praying for lapsing of the acquisition. Onthe aforesaid ground alone, the impugned judgment and order passed bythe High Court deserves to be quashed and set aside.

5. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, thepresent appeal succeeds. The impugned judgment and order passed bythe High Court is hereby quashed and set aside. There shall not be anydeemed lapse of the acquisition proceedings with respect to the land inquestion as observed and held by the High Court by the impugnedjudgment and order.

Present appeal is accordingly allowed. However, in the facts andcircumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.

Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.

Appeal allowed.

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H