Delhi Development Authority v. Mgs (india) Private Limited & Ors
M. R. SHAH, J.
1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment
and order passed by the High Court of Delhi at New De lhi dated
20.07.2015 in Writ Petition (C) No. 910 of 2015 by which the High
Court has allowed the said writ petition and has decl ared 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 Compens ation and
Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act,
2013 (hereinafter referred to as “Act, 2013”), the Delhi Devel opment
Authority (DDA) as well as Government of NCT of Delhi have preferred
the present appeals.
2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants has
vehemently submitted that the original writ petitioner before the High
Court was the subsequent purchaser, who admittedly purchas ed the
property – land in question after the acquisition proceedings commenced
and the award was declared. It is submitted that therefore, the original
writ petitioner being a subsequent purchaser had no locus to challenge
the acquisition proceedings and/or lapsing of the acquisition proceedings.
It is submitted that the aforesaid objection was taken b efore the High
Court and even it was specifically mentioned in the counter before the
High Court, however, the Hon’ble High Court has not decided the locus
of the original writ petitioner to pray for lapsing of the acquisition being
a subsequent purchaser. Reliance is placed on the decisions of this Court
in the case of Shiv Kumar & Anr. Vs. Union of India & Ors., (2019)
10 SCC 229; Delhi Development Authority Vs. Godfrey Phill ips
(I) Ltd. & Ors., Civil Appeal No. 3073 of 2022 and the subsequent
decision in which the aforesaid two decisions have been relied upon.
3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent – original
writ petitioner though is not disputing that the original writ petitioner was
the subsequent purchaser and purchased the land subsequent t o the
acquisition proceedings. However, he has submitted that the decision of
this Court in the case of Shiv Kumar & Anr. (supra) shall not be
DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY v. MGS (INDIA)
PRIVATE LIMITED & ORS.
applicable inasmuch as in that case, the original writ petitioner had no
title 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 the
case of Government (NCT of Delhi) Vs. Manav Dharam Trust
and Anr., (2017) 6 SCC 751 was on the point, which came to be relied
upon by the High Court.
4. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective
parties.
5. It is not in dispute that the original writ petitioner is the subsequent
purchaser, who purchased the land in question subsequent to the acquisition
proceedings and even after the award was declared. Therefore, being a
subsequent purchaser, as observed and held by this Court in catena of
decisions, more particularly, in the case of Shiv Kumar & Anr. (supra)
and Godfrey Phillips (I) Ltd. & Ors. (supra) and other subsequent
decisions, subsequent purchaser has no locus to challenge the lapsing of
the acquisition.
5.1 The submission on behalf of the respondent that the decision
of this Court in the case of Shiv Kumar & Anr. (supra) shall not be
applicable as in that case, the original writ petitioner claimed the title on
the basis of a general power of attorney and in the present case, the
subsequent purchaser purchased the property by registered sale deed is
concerned, it is required to be noted that the law laid down by this Court
in the aforesaid decision is that a subsequent purchaser has no locus to
challenge the acquisition. In the case of Godfrey Phillips (I) Ltd. &
Ors. (supra), it is specifically observed and held that the subsequent
purchaser has no locus to pray for lapsing of the acquisition.
5.2 Now, so far as the reliance placed upon the decision of t his
Court in the case of Manav Dharam Trust and Anr. (supra) is
concerned, it is required to be noted that the said decision is held to be
per incuriam by this Court in the aforesaid decisions.
5.3 From the impugned judgment and order passed by the High
Court, it appears that though before the High Court and so stated in the
counter, an objection was raised on maintainability of the writ petition, at
the instance of the original writ petitioner – subsequent purchaser, the
same has not been dealt with by the High Court. The High Court ought
to have dealt with the said aspect. Be that it may, the fact remains that
the respondent being a subsequent purchaser had no locus to pray for
391
lapsing of the acquisition as observed and held by this Court i n the
aforesaid decisions. Therefore, the impugned judgment and order passed
by the High Court is unsustainable.
6. 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. There shall not be any
deemed lapse of the acquisition proceedings with respect to the land in
question as observed and held by the High Court.
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 applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
Ankit Gyan Appeals allowed.
(Assisted by : Abhishek Pratap Singh, LCRA)
DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY v. MGS (INDIA)
PRIVATE LIMITED & ORS. [M. R. SHAH, J.]