Delhi Development Authority vs Manpreet Singh

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 277 OF 2023 (@ SLP (C) No. 31307 of 2018)

Delhi Development Authority …Appellant(s)

Versus

Manpreet Singh & Ors. …Respondent(s)

WITH

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 278 OF 2023 (@ SLP (C) No. 1011 of 2023) (@ Diary No. 29472 of 2021)

Govt. of NCT of Delhi Through Secretary Land & Building Department & Anr. …Appellant(s)

Versus

Manpreet Singh & Ors. …Respondent(s)

JUDGMENT

M.R. SHAH, J.

Signature Not Verified

1. Digitally signed by Neetu Sachdeva As common question of law and facts arise in these appeals, as Date: 2023.01.16 16:51:29 IST Reason:

both these appeals arise out of the impugned judgment and order

1 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 Delhi 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 – original 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 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 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

observed and held by this Court in the case of Delhi Administration

Thr. Secretary, Land and Building Department and Ors. Vs. Pawan

Kumar and Ors., Civil Appeal No. 3646 of 2022 and Delhi

Development Authority Vs. Godfrey Phillips (I) Ltd. & Ors., Civil

2 Appeal No. 3073 of 2022, being a subsequent purchaser, he had no

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 filed 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 parties at

length.

3

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 declared on

05.06.1987. Therefore, the short question, which is posed for the

consideration of this Court is:-

Whether the original writ petitioner being a subsequent purchaser

had locus to challenge the acquisition and/or lapsing 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 & 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

4 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 committed a serious

error in entertaining the writ petition at the instance of the respondent

No. 1 herein – original writ petitioner and has materially 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 that

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, both these

appeals succeed. The impugned judgment and order passed by the

5 High Court is hereby quashed and set aside. The original Writ Petition

No. 11230 of 2015 filed before the High Court stands dismissed.

Present appeals are accordingly allowed. However, in the facts

and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.

Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of.

………………………………….J. [M.R. SHAH]

NEW DELHI; ………………………………….J. JANUARY 16, 2023. [C.T. RAVIKUMAR]

6