DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY versus DAMINI WADHWA & ORS. on 4 November 2022

SUPREME COURT REPORTS

[2022] 16 S.C.R.

A

DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

v.

DAMINI WADHWA & ORS.

(Civil Appeal No. 7962 of 2022)

NOVEMBER 04, 2022

B

[M. R. SHAH AND M. M. SUNDRESH, JJ.]

Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in LandAcquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 – s.24(2) –Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – ss.4, 6 – High Court declared that theCacquisition w.r.t the lands in question is deemed to have lapsed byvirtue of s.24(2) – On appeal, held: Respondent-original writpetitioner claimed the right, title, or interest in the lands in questionon the basis of the Agreement to Sell of year 2016 – Agreement toSell by itself does not confer any right, title, or interest – Even theappellant doubted the genuineness of the transaction of theDAgreement to Sell and a specific plea was taken on the locus of theoriginal writ petitioner, however, the High Court did not deal withthe said issue – Further, notification u/s.4, 1894 Act was issued in1980 and the Agreement to Sell was of the year 2016– Thus, theoriginal writ petitioner allegedly derived the interest in the lands inEquestion much after the acquisition proceedings were initiated andtherefore, can be said to be a subsequent purchaser – Subsequentpurchaser has no right to claim lapse of acquisition proceedings–Thus, being a subsequent purchaser and/or having acquired theinterest in the lands in question subsequently, the original writpetitioner did not have any right to claim lapse of acquisitionFproceedings u/s.24(2) – Furthermore, as held in Indore DevelopmentAuthority v. Manoharlal and Ors., there cannot be any lapse ofacquisition u/s.24(2),2013 Act on the ground that possession wasnot taken and/or compensation was not deposited/tendered due tothe pending litigations– Thus, on merits also, the High Court erredGin declaring lapse of acquisition– Impugned judgment set asid–Writ petition filed before High Court is dismissed.

Allowing the appeal, the Court

Held: 1.1 The respondent No.1–original writ petitioner filedthe writ petition and claimed the right, title, or interest in theHlands in question on the basis of the Agreement to Sell dated DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY v. DAMINI WADHWA &ORS.

22.05.2016. Agreement to Sell by itself does not confer any right,title, or interest. Even in the counter affidavit, the appellantdoubted the genuineness of the transaction of the Agreement toSell dated 22.05.2016. A specific plea was taken on behalf of theDDA on the locus of the original writ petitioner. However, theHigh Court has not at all dealt with and/or considered the issuewith respect to the locus of the original writ petitioner. Evenconsidering the fact that the Agreement to Sell was of the year2016 and considering the fact that the notification under Section4 of the Act, 1894 was issued on 25.11.1980, therefore, it isapparent that the original writ petitioner allegedly derived theinterest in the lands in question much after the acquisitionproceedings were initiated and therefore, the respondent No. 1original writ petitioner can be said to be subsequent purchaser.Subsequent purchaser has no right to claim lapse of acquisitionproceedings. Under the circumstances and even accepting thecase on behalf of the original writ petitioner that she might haveacquired some interest on the basis of the Agreement to Selldated 22.05.2016, being a subsequent purchaser and/or havingacquired the interest in the lands in question subsequently, shewas not having any right to claim lapse of acquisition proceedingsunder Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013. Under the circumstances,the High Court erred in entertaining the writ petition preferredby the respondent No.1 – original writ petitioner claiming lapseof acquisition proceedings under the Act, 2013. [Paras 7,7.1][607-G-H; 608-A-F]

1.2 Even otherwise on merits also, the High Court has erredin declaring / ordering lapse of acquisition under Section 24(2) ofthe Act, 2013. The High Court has not at all appreciated the factthat the large parcels of the lands were acquired, which wereunder the same notification/ different notifications. The acquisitionproceedings under the Act, 1894 were the subject matter oflitigations and the acquisition proceedings came to be confirmedby this Court. The possession of some parcels of the land couldnot be taken over because of the pending litigations and eventhe compensation could not be deposited due to pendinglitigations. Under the circumstances and as observed and heldby this Court in the case of Indore Development Authority, therecannot be any lapse of acquisition under Section 24(2) of the Act,

A

B

CD

E

F

G

H

A2013 on the ground of possession could not be taken over by theauthority and/or the compensation could not be deposited/tendereddue to the pending litigations. Under these circumstances also,the High Court has erred in allowing the writ petition and declaringthat the acquisition with respect to the lands in question is deemedto have 8 lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013. TheBimpugned judgment and order passed by the High Court isunsustainable both on facts as well as on law. The impugnedjudgment and order passed by the High Court is quashed and setaside. The writ petition before the High Court being Writ Petition(C) No.11735 of 2016 is dismissed. [Para 7.2, 8][608-F-H; 609-CA-B, C]Indore Development Authority Vs. Manoharlal and Ors.(2020) 8 SCC 129 : [2020] 3 SCR 1 – followed.

Delhi Development Authority Vs. Godfrey Phillips (I)Ltd. & Ors.,Civil Appeal No. 3073 of 2022 – reliedDon.

Om Parkash Vs. Union of India and Ors., (2010) 4 SCC17 : [2010] 2 SCR 447; Meera Sahni Vs. LieutenantGovernor of Delhi & Ors., (2008) 9 SCC 173,M.Venkatesh & Ors. Vs. Commissioner, BangaloreEDevelopment Authority, (2015) 17 SCC 1 : [2015] 11SCR 454;Shiv Kumar & Anr. Vs. Union of India &Ors., (2019) 10 SCC 229– referred to.

Case Law Reference

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 7962

of 2022.G

From the Judgment and Order dated 25.07.2017 of the High Courtof Delhi at New Delhi in W.P. (C) No. 11735 of 2016.

Ms. Manika Tripathy, Ashotosh Kaushik, Advs. for the Appellant.

N S Vasisht, M P Bhargava, Varun Kapur, Ms. Sujeeta Srivastava,HAdvs. for the Respondents.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

M. R. SHAH, J.

1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgmentand order passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in WritPetition(C) No. 11735 of 2016 by which the High Court has allowed thesaid writ petition preferred by the private respondents herein – originalwrit petitioners and has declared that the acquisition with respect to thelands in question has lapsed by virtue of Section 24(2) of the Right toFair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitationand Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as “Act, 2013”),the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) has preferred the presentappeal.

2. That the respondent No. 1 herein – original writ petitioner fileda writ petition before the High Court seeking declaration that theacquisition with respect to the suit lands, i.e., Khasra No. 589 (1-8), 1bigha and 8 biswas (out of 4 bighas) situated in the Revenue Estate ofVillage Maidan Garhi, NCT of Delhi, is deemed to have lapsed by virtueof Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013.

2.1 At the outset, it is required to be noted that the lands in questionalongwith other agricultural lands were notified to be acquired underSection 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as“Act, 1894”) on 25.11.1980; declaration under Section 6 of the Act,1894 was issued on 07.06.1985; and award came to be declared by theCollector on 17.06.1987.

2.2 There were number of litigations initiated by variouslandowners with respect to the acquisition in question. The acquisitionproceedings initiated by the aforesaid notification/declaration werechallenged by the interested persons by filing various writ petitions whereininterim protection was granted by the High Court.

2.3 Various rounds of litigations were fought in respect of theabove-mentioned notifications. The High Court dismissed the writ petitionsvide judgment and order dated 25.11.2004 and upheld the acquisitionproceedings. It appears that in one set of writ petitions, there wasdifference of opinion and these cases were referred to the third Judge,which came to be dismissed on 11.05.2007. These cases were decidedin favour of the landowners and the notification under Section 6 andsubsequent acquisition proceedings were quashed. However, A

BC

D

E

F

GH

Asubsequently, by reported judgment in the case of Om Parkash Vs.Union of India and Ors., (2010) 4 SCC 17, this Court upheld theacquisition proceedings. Thus, the acquisition qua the lands in questionattained finality. That thereafter the private respondent herein – originalwrit petitioner filed the present writ petition before the High Court forthe aforesaid reliefs.B

2.4 A detailed counter was filed on behalf of the DelhiDevelopment Authority – the appellant herein inter alia challenging thelocus of the original writ petitioner. It was the case on behalf of theDelhi Development Authority that the possession at the relevant timecould not be taken over due to the various litigations pending with respectCto the notification / declaration. Though, it was also the case on behalf ofthe Delhi Development Authority that the substantial possession withrespect to most of the lands to be acquired were taken over, however,with respect to some portion of the acquisition, the possession could notbe taken over due to the pending litigations. Despite the above and even Dwithout considering the objections on the locus of the original writpetitioner, by the impugned judgment and order, the High Court hasdeclared that the acquisition proceedings with respect to the lands inquestion is deemed to have been lapsed by virtue of Section 24(2) of theAct, 2013, as neither the compensation has been paid nor the possession of the lands in question has been taken over. The impugned judgmentEand order passed by the High Court is the subject matter of presentappeal.

3. Ms. Manika Tripathy, learned counsel appearing on behalf ofthe appellant – DDA has submitted that as such the original writ petitionerhad no locus at all to file the writ petition before the High CourtFchallenging the acquisition and/or praying for declaration. It is submittedthat the original writ petitioner filed the writ petition on the basis of theAgreement to Sell dated 22.05.2016, which does not inspire anyconfidence. It is submitted that even otherwise the said Agreement toSell was much after the acquisition proceedings were initiated under theGprovisions of the Act, 1894. It is submitted that therefore as held by thisHon’ble Court in the case of Delhi Development Authority Vs.Godfrey Phillips (I) Ltd. & Ors., Civil appeal No. 3073 of 2022,subsequent purchaser is not entitled to claim lapsing of acquisitionproceedings under the Act, 2013. It is submitted that therefore theaforesaid aspect has not been at all considered and/or dealt with by theHHigh Court while passing the impugned judgment and order.

3.1 It is further submitted by the learned counsel appearing onbehalf of the appellant – DDA that even on merits also, the Hon’bleHigh Court has erred in holding and/or declaring that the acquisition withrespect to the lands in question has lapsed by virtue of Section 24(2) ofthe Act, 2013. It issubmitted that the Hon’ble High Court has not at allappreciated the fact that the possession of the substantial portion of thelands acquired was taken over. However, with respect to small parcelsof lands, the possession could not be taken over because of the pendinglitigations challenging the acquisition proceedings. It is submitted that asobserved and held by this Hon’ble Court in the case of IndoreDevelopment Authority Vs. Manoharlal and Ors. (2020) 8 SCC129,once the authority could not take the possession due to pendinglitigations, there is no question of attracting Section 24(2) of the Act,2013.

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

4. Shri N.S. Vasisht, learned counsel appearing on behalf of theoriginal writ petitioner – respondent No. 1 while opposing the presentappeal has vehemently submitted that considering the fact that neitherthepossession was takenover nor the compensation was paid/tendered,as rightly observed and held by the Hon’ble High Court, Section 24(2) ofthe Act, 2013 shall be attracted and, therefore, there shall be deemedlapse of the acquisition. It is submitted that therefore, no error has beencommitted by the Hon’ble High Court in allowing the writ petition.

5. Ms. Sujeeta Srivastava, learned counsel appearing on behalf ofthe respondent Nos. 4 and 5 has supported the appellant.

6. We have heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of therespective parties at length.

7. At the outset, it is required to be noted that from the counterfiled on behalf of the DDA, which is on record, it appears that therespondent No.1 – original writ petitioner filed the writ petition andclaimed the right, title, or interest in the lands in question on the basis ofthe Agreement to Sell dated 22.05.2016. As per the settled position oflaw, Agreement to Sell by itself does not confer any right, title, or interest.Even in the counter affidavit, the appellant doubted the genuineness ofthe transaction of the Agreement to Sell dated 22.05.2016. A specificplea was taken on behalf of the DDA on the locus of the original writ A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

Apetitioner.However, the High Court has not at all dealt with and/orconsidered the issue with respect to the locus of the original writ petitioner.Be that it may, even considering the fact that the Agreement to Sell wasof the year 2016 and considering the fact that the notification underSection 4 of the Act, 1894 was issued on 25.11.1980, therefore, it isapparent that the original writ petitioner allegedly derived the interest inBthe lands in question much after the acquisition proceedings were initiatedand therefore, the respondent No.1 – original writ petitioner can be saidto be subsequent purchaser. In the recent decision of this Court in thecase of Godfrey Phillips (I) Ltd. & Ors. (supra) after consideringthe other decisions on the right of the subsequent purchaser to claimClapse of acquisition proceedings, i.e., Meera Sahni Vs. LieutenantGovernor of Delhi& Ors., (2008) 9 SCC 173 and M. Venkatesh& Ors. Vs. Commissioner, Bangalore Development Authority,(2015) 17 SCC1, it is specifically observed and held that subsequentpurchaser has no right to claim lapse of acquisition proceedings. Similarview has been expressed by the Larger Bench judgment of this Court inDthe case of Shiv Kumar & Anr. Vs. Union of India & Ors., (2019)10 SCC 229.

7.1 Under the circumstances and even accepting the case onbehalf of the original writ petitioner that she might have acquired someinterest on the basis of the Agreement to Sell dated 22.05.2016,being aEsubsequent purchaser and/or having acquired the interest in the lands inquestion subsequently, she was not having any right to claim lapse ofacquisition proceedings under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013. Under thecircumstances, the High Court erred in entertaining the writ petitionpreferred by the respondent No. 1 – original writ petitioner claimingFlapse of acquisition proceedings under the Act, 2013.

7.2 Even otherwise on merits also, the High Court has erred indeclaring/ ordering lapse of acquisition under Section 24(2) of the Act,2013. The High Court has not at all appreciated the fact that the largeparcels of the lands were acquired, which were under the sameGnotification/ different notifications. The acquisition proceedings underthe Act, 1894 were the subject matter of litigations and the acquisitionproceedings came to be confirmed by this Court. The possession ofsome parcels of the land could not be taken over because of the pendinglitigations and even the compensation could not be deposited due topending litigations. Under the circumstances and as observed and heldH

DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY v. DAMINI WADHWA &ORS. [M. R. SHAH, J.]

by this Court in the case of Indore Development Authority (supra),there cannot be any lapse of acquisition under Section 24(2) of the Act,2013 on the ground of possession could not be taken over by the authorityand/or the compensation could not be deposited / tendered due to thepending litigations. Under these circumstances also, the High Court haserred in allowing the writ petition and declaring that the acquisition withrespect to the lands in question is deemed to have lapsed under Section24(2) of the Act, 2013. The impugned judgment and order passed by theHigh Court is unsustainable both on facts as well as on law.

8. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, presentappeal succeeds. The impugned judgment and order passed by the HighCourt dated 25.07.2017 in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 11735 of 2016 ishereby quashed and set aside. Consequently, the writ petition before theHigh Court being Writ Petition (C) No. 11735 of 2016 stands dismissed.

Present appeal is accordingly allowed. No costs.

Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.

Divya Pandey

Appeal allowed.

(Assisted by : Roopanshi Virang, LCRA)

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H