Delhi Development Authority v. Manpreet Singh & Ors
M. R. SHAH, J.
1. As common question of law and facts arise in these appeals, as
both these appeals arise out of the impugned judgment and order passed
by the High Court, both these appeals are being decided and disposed of
together by this common judgment and order.
2. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment
and order passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Del hi dated
30.01.2018 passed in Writ Petition (C) No. 11230 of 2015 by which on
the writ petition filed by the respondent No. 1 herein – origina l writ
petitioner, the High Court has allowed the said writ petition and has held
that the acquisition with respect to the 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 benefic iary -
Delhi Development Authority (DDA) and the acquiring body –
Government of NCT of Delhi have preferred the present appeal s.
3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants has
vehemently submitted that as such the respondent No. 1 herein – original
writ petitioner is the subsequent purchaser, who purchased the property
even after the Act, 2013 coming into force and therefore as ob served
and held by this Court in the case of Delhi Administration Thr.
Secretary, Land and Building Department and Ors. Vs. Paw an
Kumar and Ors., Civil Appeal No. 3646 of 2022 and Delhi
Development Authority Vs. Godfrey Phillips (I) Ltd. & Ors., Civil
Appeal No. 3073 of 2022 , being a subsequent purchaser, he had no
739
locus to challenge the acquisition / lapsing of the acquisition proceedings
under the Act, 2013. It is submitted that therefore, the High Court has
materially erred in declaring that the acquisition with respect to the land
in question is deemed to have lapsed in a writ petition fil ed by the
respondent No. 1 being a subsequent purchaser, who as such had no
locus to challenge the acquisition as observed and held by this Court in
the aforesaid decisions.
4. Shri Gopal Sankaranarayanan, learned senior counsel,
however, has submitted that the decision of this Court in the case of
Shiv Kumar & Anr. Vs. Union of India & Ors., (2019) 10 SCC
229 , which has been considered by this Court while allowing Civil
Appeal No. 3073 of 2022 - Delhi Development Authority Vs.
Godfrey Phillips (I) Ltd. & Ors. requires re-consideration as certain
relevant aspects under the Act, 2013 has not been dealt with and/ or
considered. However, he is not disputing that the original writ petitioner
is a subsequent purchaser, who acquired the right, title and interest in the
property in the year 2018 and/or even subsequent to Act, 2013 coming
into force.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the respective par ties
at length.
6. At the outset, it is required to be noted that it was the specific
case on behalf of the appellants before the High Court that the original
writ petitioner is a subsequent purchaser, who has acquired the right,
title or interest in the land in the year 2018. The original writ petitioner
was not the recorded owner at the time when the award with respect to
the land in question under the provisions of Land Acquisition Act, 1894
(hereinafter referred to as “Act, 1894”) was issued. From the material
on record, it appears that before the High Court, the original writ petitioner
claimed the right, title or interest on the basis of the Assignment Deed of
2015. In the present case, the notification under Section 4 of the Act,
1894 was issued on 25.11.1980 and the award was decl ared on
05.06.1987. Therefore, the short question, which is p osed for the
consideration of this Court is:-
Whether the original writ petitioner being a subsequent purchaser
had locus to challenge the acquisition and/or lapsin g of the
acquisition?
6.1 The aforesaid issue is now not res integra in view of the
Three Judge Bench decision of this Court in the case of Shiv Kumar &
DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY v. MANPREET SINGH &
ORS. [M. R. SHAH, J.]
Anr. (supra) , which has been subsequently followed by another Bench
of this Court in the cases of Godfrey Phillips (I) Ltd. & Ors. (supra)
and Pawan Kumar and Ors. (supra) . The decision of this Court in the
case of Shiv Kumar & Anr. (supra) is a Three Judge Bench decision
by which a contrary view taken by the Two Judge Bench of this Court in
the case of Government (NCT of Delhi) Vs. Manav Dharam Trust
and Anr., (2017) 6 SCC 751 has not been accepted and is found to be
not a good law. That thereafter after following the Three Judge Bench
decision in the case of Shiv Kumar & Anr. (supra) in the cases of
Godfrey Phillips (I) Ltd. & Ors. (supra) and Pawan Kumar and
Ors. (supra) , this Court has subsequently observed and held that a
subsequent purchaser has no locus to challenge the acquisition
proceedings / lapsing of the acquisition under the Act, 2013.
6.2 In that view of the matter, the High Court has committe d a
serious error in entertaining the writ petition at the ins tance of the
respondent No. 1 herein – original writ petitioner and has mate rially
erred in declaring that the acquisition with respect to the land in question
is deemed to have lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013 in a writ
petition filed by the respondent No. 1 herein – original writ petitioner,
who is a subsequent purchaser. Under the circumstances and on tha t
ground alone, the impugned common judgment and order passed by the
High Court is required to be quashed and set aside.
7. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, bot h
these appeals succeed. The impugned judgment and order passed b y
the High Court is hereby quashed and set aside. The original Wr it
Petition No. 11230 of 2015 filed before the High Court stands dismissed.
Present appeals are accordingly allowed. However, in the fac ts
and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as t o costs.
Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of.
Nidhi Jain Appeals allowed.
(Assisted by : Abhishek Agnihotri, LCRA)