DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY versus MANPREET SINGH & ORS on 16 January 2023

1. As common question of law and facts arise in these appeals, asDboth these appeals arise out of the impugned judgment and order passedby the High Court, both these appeals are being decided and disposed oftogether by this common judgment and order.

2. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgmentand order passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi dated30.01.2018 passed in Writ Petition (C) No. 11230 of 2015 by which onEthe writ petition filed by the respondent No. 1 herein – original writpetitioner, the High Court has allowed the said writ petition and has heldthat the acquisition with respect to the land in question is deemed tohave lapsed by virtue of Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensationand Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and ResettlementFAct, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as “Act, 2013”), the beneficiary -Delhi Development Authority (DDA) and the acquiring body –Government of NCT of Delhi have preferred the present appeals.

3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants hasvehemently submitted that as such the respondent No. 1 herein – originalGwrit petitioner is the subsequent purchaser, who purchased the propertyeven after the Act, 2013 coming into force and therefore as observedand held by this Court in the case of Delhi Administration Thr.Secretary, Land and Building Department and Ors. Vs. PawanKumar and Ors., Civil Appeal No. 3646 of 2022 and DelhiDevelopment Authority Vs. Godfrey Phillips (I) Ltd. & Ors., CivilHAppeal No. 3073 of 2022, being a subsequent purchaser, he had no

locus to challenge the acquisition / lapsing of the acquisition proceedingsunder the Act, 2013. It is submitted that therefore, the High Court hasmaterially erred in declaring that the acquisition with respect to the landin question is deemed to have lapsed in a writ petition filed by therespondent No. 1 being a subsequent purchaser, who as such had nolocus to challenge the acquisition as observed and held by this Court inthe aforesaid decisions.

4. Shri Gopal Sankaranarayanan, learned senior counsel,however, has submitted that the decision of this Court in the case ofShiv Kumar & Anr. Vs. Union of India & Ors., (2019) 10 SCC229, which has been considered by this Court while allowing CivilAppeal No. 3073 of 2022 - Delhi Development Authority Vs.Godfrey Phillips (I) Ltd. & Ors. requires re-consideration as certainrelevant aspects under the Act, 2013 has not been dealt with and/orconsidered. However, he is not disputing that the original writ petitioneris a subsequent purchaser, who acquired the right, title and interest in theproperty in the year 2018 and/or even subsequent to Act, 2013 cominginto force.

5. We have heard the learned counsel for the respective partiesat length.

6. At the outset, it is required to be noted that it was the specificcase on behalf of the appellants before the High Court that the originalwrit petitioner is a subsequent purchaser, who has acquired the right,title or interest in the land in the year 2018. The original writ petitionerwas not the recorded owner at the time when the award with respect tothe land in question under the provisions of Land Acquisition Act, 1894(hereinafter referred to as “Act, 1894”) was issued. From the materialon record, it appears that before the High Court, the original writ petitionerclaimed the right, title or interest on the basis of the Assignment Deed of2015. In the present case, the notification under Section 4 of the Act,1894 was issued on 25.11.1980 and the award was declared on05.06.1987. Therefore, the short question, which is posed for theconsideration of this Court is:- Whether the original writ petitioner being a subsequent purchaserhad locus to challenge the acquisition and/or lapsing of theacquisition?

6.1 The aforesaid issue is now not res integra in view of theThree Judge Bench decision of this Court in the case of Shiv Kumar &

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

AAnr. (supra), which has been subsequently followed by another Benchof this Court in the cases of Godfrey Phillips (I) Ltd. & Ors. (supra)and Pawan Kumar and Ors. (supra). The decision of this Court in thecase of Shiv Kumar & Anr. (supra) is a Three Judge Bench decisionby which a contrary view taken by the Two Judge Bench of this Court inthe case of Government (NCT of Delhi) Vs. Manav Dharam TrustBand Anr., (2017) 6 SCC 751 has not been accepted and is found to benot a good law. That thereafter after following the Three Judge Benchdecision in the case of Shiv Kumar & Anr. (supra) in the cases ofGodfrey Phillips (I) Ltd. & Ors. (supra) and Pawan Kumar andOrs. (supra), this Court has subsequently observed and held that aCsubsequent purchaser has no locus to challenge the acquisitionproceedings / lapsing of the acquisition under the Act, 2013.

6.2 In that view of the matter, the High Court has committed aserious error in entertaining the writ petition at the instance of therespondent No. 1 herein – original writ petitioner and has materiallyDerred in declaring that the acquisition with respect to the land in questionis deemed to have lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013 in a writpetition filed by the respondent No. 1 herein – original writ petitioner,who is a subsequent purchaser. Under the circumstances and on thatground alone, the impugned common judgment and order passed by the High Court is required to be quashed and set aside.E

High Court is required to be quashed and set aside.E

7. 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. The original WritPetition No. 11230 of 2015 filed before the High Court stands dismissed.

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

Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of.

G

Nidhi Jain

(Assisted by : Abhishek Agnihotri, LCRA)

Appeals allowed.

H