DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY versus NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN & ORS. on 4 May 2023

1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgmentand order passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in Writ Petition(C) No. 9745 of 2015, by which, the High Court has allowed the saidwrit petition and has declared that the acquisition with respect to theland in question is deemed to have lapsed under Section 24(2) of theRight to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition,Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as“Act, 2013”), the Delhi Development Authority has preferred the presentappeal.

2. From the impugned judgment and order passed by the HighCourt it appears that and even from the counter filed on behalf of theLAC before the High Court, it was the case on behalf of the LAC thatpossession of the land in question was taken over on 12.07.2004. It wasalso the case on behalf of the LAC that original writ petitioners –respondents herein are not recorded owners and they are the subsequentpurchaser. However, thereafter, relying upon the decision of this Courtin the case of Govt. of NCT of Delhi Vs. Manav Dharma Trust(2017) 6 SCC 751, the High Court has overruled the objection that thewrit petitioners being subsequent purchaser has no locus to challengethe acquisition and/or to pray for deemed lapse of acquisition, thereafter,on the ground that the compensation has not been paid/tendered, theHigh Court has allowed the writ petition.

3. However, it is required to be noted that the decision of thisCourt in the case of Manav Dharma Trust (supra) which has beenrelied upon by the High Court while passing the impugned judgment andorder, is held to be not a good law in view of the decision of this Court inthe case of Shiv Kumar & Anr. Vs. Union of India & Ors. (2019)10 SCC 229 and subsequent decision of this Court in the case of DelhiDevelopment Authority Vs. Godfrey Philips (I) Ltd. & Ors. CivilAppeal No. 3073/2022.

A

B

C

DE

F

G

H

A4. In the case of Shiv Kumar (supra) and Godfrey Philips (I)Ltd. (supra), it is specifically observed and held that the subsequentpurchaser has no locus to challenge the acquisition and/or pray for deemedlapse of acquisition.

5. In view of the matter, the impugned judgment and order passedBby the High Court is unsustainable and the same deserves to be quashedand set aside and is accordingly quashed and set aside. Appeal isaccordingly allowed. No costs.

Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.

CAnkit Gyan

(Assisted by : Abhishek Agnihotri, LCRA)

Appeal allowed.

D

E

F

G

H