Delhi Development Authority vs Narendra Kumar Jain

Delhi Development Authority …Appellant(s)

Versus

Narendra Kumar Jain & 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.

9745 of 2015, by which, the High Court has allowed

the said writ petition and has declared that the

acquisition with respect to the land in question is

Signature Not Verified deemed to have lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Digitally signed by R Natarajan Date: 2023.05.04 16:38:35 IST Reason: Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in

Page 1 of 4 Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement

Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as “Act, 2013”),

the Delhi Development Authority has preferred the

present appeal.

2. From the impugned judgment and order passed by

the High Court it appears that and even from the

counter filed on behalf of the LAC before the High

Court, it was the case on behalf of the LAC that

possession of the land in question was taken over

on 12.07.2004. It was also the case on behalf of the

LAC that original writ petitioners – respondents

herein are not recorded owners and they are the

subsequent purchaser. However, thereafter, relying

upon the decision of this Court in the case of Govt.

of NCT of Delhi Vs. Manav Dharma Trust (2017) 6

SCC 751, the High Court has overruled the

objection that the writ petitioners being subsequent

purchaser has no locus to challenge the acquisition

Page 2 of 4 and/or to pray for deemed lapse of acquisition,

thereafter, on the ground that the compensation has

not been paid/tendered, the High Court has allowed

the writ petition.

3. However, it is required to be noted that the decision

of this Court in the case of Manav Dharma Trust

(supra) which has been relied upon by the High

Court while passing the impugned judgment and

order, is held to be not a good law in view of the

decision of this Court in the case of Shiv Kumar &

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

and subsequent decision of this Court in the case of

Delhi Development Authority Vs. Godfrey Philips

(I) Ltd. & Ors. Civil Appeal No. 3073/2022.

4. In the case of Shiv Kumar (supra) and Godfrey

Philips (I) Ltd. (supra), it is specifically observed

and held that the subsequent purchaser has no

Page 3 of 4 locus to challenge the acquisition and/or pray for

deemed lapse of acquisition.

5. In view of the matter, the impugned judgment and

order passed by the High Court is unsustainable

and the same deserves to be quashed and set aside

and is accordingly quashed and set aside. Appeal is

accordingly allowed. No costs.

Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.

………………………………….J. [M.R. SHAH]

NEW DELHI; ………………………………….J.

MAY 4, 2023. [AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH]

Page 4 of 4