Delhi Development Authority vs Damini Wadhwa

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 7962 OF 2022

Delhi Development Authority …Appellant(s)

Versus

Damini Wadhwa & Ors. …Respondent(s)

JUDGMENT

M.R. SHAH, J.

1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment

and order passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in Writ Petition

(C) No. 11735 of 2016 by which the High Court has allowed the said writ

petition preferred by the private respondents herein – original writ

petitioners and has declared that the acquisition with respect to the

lands in question has 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 Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by NIRMALA NEGI

Delhi Development Authority (DDA) has preferred the present appeal. Date: 2022.11.04 16:23:56 IST Reason: 1

2. That the respondent No. 1 herein – original writ petitioner filed a

writ petition before the High Court seeking declaration that the

acquisition with respect to the suit lands, i.e., Khasra No. 589 (1-8), 1

bigha and 8 biswas (out of 4 bighas) situated in the Revenue Estate of

Village Maidan Garhi, NCT of Delhi, is deemed to have lapsed by virtue

of Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013.

2.1 At the outset, it is required to be noted that the lands in question

alongwith other agricultural lands were notified to be acquired under

Section 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 the

Collector on 17.06.1987.

2.2 There were number of litigations initiated by various landowners

with respect to the acquisition in question. The acquisition proceedings

initiated by the aforesaid notification/declaration were challenged by the

interested persons by filing various writ petitions wherein interim

protection was granted by the High Court.

2.3 Various rounds of litigations were fought in respect of the above-

mentioned notifications. The High Court dismissed the writ petitions vide

judgment and order dated 25.11.2004 and upheld the acquisition

2 proceedings. It appears that in one set of writ petitions, there was

difference of opinion and these cases were referred to the third Judge,

which came to be dismissed on 11.05.2007. These cases were decided

in favour of the landowners and the notification under Section 6 and

subsequent acquisition proceedings were quashed. However,

subsequently, by reported judgment in the case of Om Parkash Vs.

Union of India and Ors., (2010) 4 SCC 17, this Court upheld the

acquisition proceedings. Thus, the acquisition qua the lands in question

attained finality. That thereafter the private respondent herein – original

writ petitioner filed the present writ petition before the High Court for the

aforesaid reliefs.

2.4 A detailed counter was filed on behalf of the Delhi Development

Authority – the appellant herein inter alia challenging the locus of the

original writ petitioner. It was the case on behalf of the Delhi

Development Authority that the possession at the relevant time could not

be taken over due to the various litigations pending with respect to the

notification / declaration. Though, it was also the case on behalf of the

Delhi Development Authority that the substantial possession with respect

to most of the lands to be acquired were taken over, however, with

respect to some portion of the acquisition, the possession could not be

taken over due to the pending litigations. Despite the above and even

3 without considering the objections on the locus of the original writ

petitioner, by the impugned judgment and order, the High Court has

declared that the acquisition proceedings with respect to the lands in

question is deemed to have been lapsed by virtue of Section 24(2) of the

Act, 2013, as neither the compensation has been paid nor the

possession of the lands in question has been taken over. The impugned

judgment and order passed by the High Court is the subject matter of

present appeal.

3. Ms. Manika Tripathy, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the

appellant – DDA has submitted that as such the original writ petitioner

had no locus at all to file the writ petition before the High Court

challenging the acquisition and/or praying for declaration. It is submitted

that the original writ petitioner filed the writ petition on the basis of the

Agreement to Sell dated 22.05.2016, which does not inspire any

confidence. It is submitted that even otherwise the said Agreement to

Sell was much after the acquisition proceedings were initiated under the

provisions of the Act, 1894. It is submitted that therefore as held by this

Hon’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 acquisition proceedings

under the Act, 2013. It is submitted that therefore the aforesaid aspect

4 has not been at all considered and/or dealt with by the High Court while

passing the impugned judgment and order.

3.1 It is further submitted by the learned counsel appearing on behalf

of the appellant – DDA that even on merits also, the Hon’ble High Court

has erred in holding and/or declaring that the acquisition with respect to

the lands in question has lapsed by virtue of Section 24(2) of the Act,

2013. It is submitted that the Hon’ble High Court has not at all

appreciated the fact that the possession of the substantial portion of the

lands acquired was taken over. However, with respect to small parcels

of lands, the possession could not be taken over because of the pending

litigations challenging the acquisition proceedings. It is submitted that as

observed and held by this Hon’ble Court in the case of Indore

Development Authority Vs. Manoharlal and Ors. (2020) 8 SCC 129,

once the authority could not take the possession due to pending

litigations, there is no question of attracting Section 24(2) of the Act,

2013.

3.2 Making above submissions and relying upon the above decisions,

it is prayed to allow the present appeal.

4. Shri N.S. Vasisht, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the

original writ petitioner – respondent No. 1 while opposing the present

5 appeal has vehemently submitted that considering the fact that neither

the possession was taken over nor the compensation was

paid/tendered, as rightly observed and held by the Hon’ble High Court,

Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013 shall be attracted and, therefore, there

shall be deemed lapse of the acquisition. It is submitted that therefore,

no error has been committed by the Hon’ble High Court in allowing the

writ petition.

5. Ms. Sujeeta Srivastava, learned counsel appearing on behalf of

the respondent Nos. 4 and 5 has supported the appellant.

6. We have heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the

respective parties at length.

7. At the outset, it is required to be noted that from the counter filed

on behalf of the DDA, which is on record, it appears that the respondent

No. 1 – original writ petitioner filed the writ petition and claimed the right,

title, or interest in the lands in question on the basis of the Agreement to

Sell dated 22.05.2016. As per the settled position of law, Agreement to

Sell by itself does not confer any right, title, or interest. Even in the

counter affidavit, the appellant doubted the genuineness of the

transaction of the Agreement to Sell dated 22.05.2016. A specific plea

was taken on behalf of the DDA on the locus of the original writ

6 petitioner. However, the High Court has not at all dealt with and/or

considered 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 was of the year 2016 and considering the fact that the notification

under Section 4 of the Act, 1894 was issued on 25.11.1980, therefore, it

is apparent that the original writ petitioner allegedly derived the interest

in the lands in question much after the acquisition proceedings were

initiated and therefore, the respondent No. 1 – original writ petitioner can

be said to be subsequent purchaser. In the recent decision of this Court

in the case of Godfrey Phillips (I) Ltd. & Ors. (supra) after considering

the other decisions on the right of the subsequent purchaser to claim

lapse of acquisition proceedings, i.e., Meera Sahni Vs. Lieutenant

Governor of Delhi & Ors., (2008) 9 SCC 173 and M. Venkatesh & Ors.

Vs. Commissioner, Bangalore Development Authority, (2015) 17

SCC 1, it is specifically observed and held that subsequent purchaser

has no right to claim lapse of acquisition proceedings. Similar view has

been expressed by the Larger Bench judgment of this Court in the case

of Shiv Kumar & Anr. Vs. Union of India & Ors., (2019) 10 SCC 229.

7.1 Under the circumstances and even accepting the case on behalf of

the original writ petitioner that she might have acquired some interest on

the basis of the Agreement to Sell dated 22.05.2016, being a

subsequent purchaser and/or having acquired the interest in the lands in

7 question subsequently, she was not having any right to claim lapse of

acquisition proceedings under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013. Under the

circumstances, the High Court erred in entertaining the writ petition

preferred by the respondent No. 1 – original writ petitioner claiming lapse

of acquisition proceedings under the Act, 2013.

7.2 Even otherwise on merits also, the High Court has erred in

declaring / ordering lapse of acquisition under Section 24(2) of the Act,

2013. The High Court has not at all appreciated the fact that the large

parcels of the lands were acquired, which were under the same

notification/ different notifications. The acquisition proceedings under

the Act, 1894 were the subject matter of litigations and the acquisition

proceedings came to be confirmed by this Court. The possession of

some parcels of the land could not be taken over because of the

pending litigations and even the compensation could not be deposited

due to pending litigations. Under the circumstances and as observed

and held 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 authority and/or the compensation could not be deposited / tendered

due to the pending litigations. Under these circumstances also, the High

Court has erred in allowing the writ petition and declaring that the

acquisition with respect to the lands in question is deemed to have

8 lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013. The impugned judgment

and order passed by the High Court is unsustainable both on facts as

well as on law.

8. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, present

appeal succeeds. The impugned judgment and order passed by the

High Court dated 25.07.2017 in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 11735 of 2016 is

hereby quashed and set aside. Consequently, the writ petition before

the High 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.

………………………………….J. [M.R. SHAH]

NEW DELHI; ………………………………….J. NOVEMBER 04, 2022. [M.M. SUNDRESH]

9