Government Of Nct Of Delhi vs M/S Beads Properties Pvt. Ltd.

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1522 OF 2023 (@ SLP (C) NO. 4529 OF 2023) (@ DIARY NO. 8413 OF 2022)

Government of NCT of Delhi and Anr. …Appellant(s)

Versus

M/s. Beads Properties Pvt. Ltd. & 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 dated

24.08.2015 in Writ Petition (C) No. 6963 of 2014 by which the High Court Signature Not Verified

has allowed the said writ petition preferred by the respondent No. 1 Digitally signed by Neetu Sachdeva Date: 2023.03.13 16:11:40 IST Reason:

herein – original writ petitioner and has declared that the acquisition with

respect to the land in question is deemed to have lapsed by virtue of 1 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 Government of NCT of Delhi and Anr.

have preferred the present appeal.

2. From the counter affidavit filed before the High Court, it was the

specific case on behalf of the appellants / Land Acquisition collector that

the recorded owners of the land in question are Parvati Jain, Lajja Ram

and D. L. Parti and since the recorded / original owners never challenge

the acquisition proceedings, the original writ petitioner had no right to

challenge the same. Even from the averments in the writ petition and

even according to the original writ petitioner, the original writ petitioner

purchased the land in question after the notification under Section 4 was

issued. At this stage, it is required to be noted that the notification under

Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was issued on 25.11.1980

and the declaration under Section 6 of the Act was made on 07.06.1985

and the award under Section 11 of the Act, 1894 was published on

09.07.1987.

2.1 From the averments in the writ petition (paragraph 3), the original

writ petitioner purchased the lands thereafter, i.e., in the year 1990.

Therefore, it was the case on behalf of the appellant before the High

Court that the original writ petitioner being the subsequent purchaser

2 had no locus to challenge the acquisition / lapsing of the acquisition.

Without adverting to on the aforesaid issue, the High Court has

entertained the said writ petition and has allowed the same.

2.2 Whether the subsequent purchaser has a locus to challenge the

acquisition / lapsing of the acquisition is now not res integra in view of

the decisions of this Court in the case of Shiv Kumar & Anr. Vs. Union

of India & Ors., (2019) 10 SCC 229 and Delhi Development Authority

Vs. Godfrey Phillips (I) Ltd. & Ors., Civil Appeal No. 3073 of 2022.

2.3 In the aforesaid decisions and the other subsequent decisions, it is

specifically observed and held that the subsequent purchaser has no

locus to challenge the acquisition / lapsing of the acquisition. Under the

circumstances, the High Court has erred in entertaining the writ petition

preferred by the respondent No.1 herein – original writ petitioner being a

subsequent purchaser and particularly when the original owners /

recorded owners did not challenge the acquisition at all.

3. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, the

impugned judgment and order passed by 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.

3 Present appeal is 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. MARCH 13, 2023. [C.T. RAVIKUMAR]

4