DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY versus MGS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED & ORS on 17 February 2023

1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgmentand order passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi dated20.07.2015 in Writ Petition (C) No. 910 of 2015 by which the HighCourt has allowed the said writ petition and has declared that theacquisition with respect to the land in question is deemed to have lapsedby virtue of Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation andTransparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act,2013 (hereinafter referred to as “Act, 2013”), the Delhi DevelopmentAuthority (DDA) as well as Government of NCT of Delhi have preferredthe present appeals.

2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants hasvehemently submitted that the original writ petitioner before the HighCourt was the subsequent purchaser, who admittedly purchased theproperty – land in question after the acquisition proceedings commencedand the award was declared. It is submitted that therefore, the originalwrit petitioner being a subsequent purchaser had no locus to challengethe acquisition proceedings and/or lapsing of the acquisition proceedings.It is submitted that the aforesaid objection was taken before the HighCourt and even it was specifically mentioned in the counter before theHigh Court, however, the Hon’ble High Court has not decided the locusof the original writ petitioner to pray for lapsing of the acquisition beinga subsequent purchaser. Reliance is placed on the decisions of this Courtin the case of Shiv Kumar & Anr. Vs. Union of India & Ors., (2019)10 SCC 229; Delhi Development Authority Vs. Godfrey Phillips(I) Ltd. & Ors., Civil Appeal No. 3073 of 2022 and the subsequentdecision in which the aforesaid two decisions have been relied upon.

3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent – originalwrit petitioner though is not disputing that the original writ petitioner wasthe subsequent purchaser and purchased the land subsequent to theacquisition proceedings. However, he has submitted that the decision ofthis Court in the case of Shiv Kumar & Anr. (supra) shall not be A

B

C

D

EF

G

H

Aapplicable inasmuch as in that case, the original writ petitioner had notitle and he claimed the title on the basis of the general power of attorney.It is submitted that at the relevant time, the decision of this Court in thecase of Government (NCT of Delhi) Vs. Manav Dharam Trustand Anr., (2017) 6 SCC 751 was on the point, which came to be reliedupon by the High Court.B4. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the respectiveparties.

5. It is not in dispute that the original writ petitioner is the subsequentpurchaser, who purchased the land in question subsequent to the acquisitionCproceedings and even after the award was declared. Therefore, being asubsequent purchaser, as observed and held by this Court in catena ofdecisions, more particularly, in the case of Shiv Kumar & Anr. (supra)and Godfrey Phillips (I) Ltd. & Ors. (supra) and other subsequentdecisions, subsequent purchaser has no locus to challenge the lapsing ofthe acquisition.D

5.1 The submission on behalf of the respondent that the decisionof this Court in the case of Shiv Kumar & Anr. (supra) shall not beapplicable as in that case, the original writ petitioner claimed the title onthe basis of a general power of attorney and in the present case, thesubsequent purchaser purchased the property by registered sale deed isEconcerned, it is required to be noted that the law laid down by this Courtin the aforesaid decision is that a subsequent purchaser has no locus tochallenge the acquisition. In the case of Godfrey Phillips (I) Ltd. &Ors. (supra), it is specifically observed and held that the subsequentpurchaser has no locus to pray for lapsing of the acquisition.F5.2 Now, so far as the reliance placed upon the decision of thisCourt in the case of Manav Dharam Trust and Anr. (supra) isconcerned, it is required to be noted that the said decision is held to beper incuriam by this Court in the aforesaid decisions.

5.3 From the impugned judgment and order passed by the HighGCourt, it appears that though before the High Court and so stated in thecounter, an objection was raised on maintainability of the writ petition, atthe instance of the original writ petitioner – subsequent purchaser, thesame has not been dealt with by the High Court. The High Court oughtto have dealt with the said aspect. Be that it may, the fact remains thatthe respondent being a subsequent purchaser had no locus to pray forH

DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY v. MGS (INDIA)PRIVATE LIMITED & ORS. [M. R. SHAH, J.]

lapsing of the acquisition as observed and held by this Court in theaforesaid decisions. Therefore, the impugned judgment and order passedby the High Court is unsustainable.

A

6. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, boththese appeals succeed. The impugned judgment and order passed bythe High Court is hereby quashed and set aside. There shall not be anyBdeemed lapse of the acquisition proceedings with respect to the land inquestion as observed and held by the High Court.

Present appeals are accordingly allowed. However, in the factsand circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.

C

Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.

Ankit Gyan

(Assisted by : Abhishek Pratap Singh, LCRA)

Appeals allowed.

D

E

F

G

H