Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi vs Vijay Gupta

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1784 OF 2023 (@ SLP (C) No. 5386 of 2023) (Diary No. 9620 of 2022)

Government of NCT of Delhi …Appellant(s)

Versus

Vijay Gupta & 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

06.08.2018 in Writ Petition (C) No. 9196 of 2015 by which the High Court

has allowed the said writ petition preferred by the contesting

respondents herein and has declared 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 Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by Neetu Sachdeva

“Act, 2013”), the Government of NCT of Delhi has preferred the present Date: 2023.03.24 16:35:12 IST Reason:

appeal.

1

2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has

vehemently submitted that it was the specific case on behalf of the

appellant before the High Court that as the original writ petitioners before

the High Court were the subsequent purchasers, they have no locus to

challenge the acquisition / lapsing of acquisition. It is submitted that,

however, despite the above objection, the High Court has entertained

the writ petition at the instance of the subsequent purchasers and has

declared that the acquisition with respect to the land in question is

deemed to have lapsed by virtue of Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013,

relying upon the decision of this Court in the case of Government (NCT

of Delhi) Vs. Manav Dharam Trust and Anr., (2017) 6 SCC 751. It is

submitted that in view of the decision of this Court in the case of Shiv

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

decision in the case of Manav Dharam Trust and Anr. (supra) is not a

good law. It is submitted that as observed and held by this Court in the

case of Shiv Kumar & Anr. (supra) followed by this Court in the

subsequent decisions in the case of Delhi Development Authority Vs.

Godfrey Phillips (I) Ltd. & Ors., (2022) 8 SCC 771 and Delhi

Administration Thr. Secretary, Land and Building Department &

Ors. Vs. Pawan Kumar & Ors., (2022) 7 SCC 470, a subsequent

purchaser has no locus to challenge the acquisition and / or lapsing of

the acquisition.

2 Making above submissions and relying upon the above decisions,

it is prayed to allow the present appeal.

3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the contesting

respondents – original writ petitioners is not in a position to dispute that

they had purchased the land in question subsequent to the acquisition

proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Even, the learned

counsel appearing on behalf of the original writ petitioners is not in a

position to point out any valid title deed. From the averments in the

petition before the High Court, it appears that the original writ petitioners

claimed the relief based on general power of attorney, will, receipt etc.,

which as such cannot confer any title on the original writ petitioners.

4. Be that it may, the fact remains that the respondents can be said

to be subsequent purchasers. As per the law laid down by this Court in

the case of Shiv Kumar & Anr. (supra), which has been subsequently

followed by this Court in the case of Godfrey Phillips (I) Ltd. & Ors.

(supra) and Pawan Kumar & Ors. (supra) and even in other decisions,

a subsequent purchaser has no locus to challenge the acquisition /

lapsing of the acquisition. In that view of the matter, the High Court has

materially erred in entertaining the writ petition preferred by the original

writ petitioners praying for lapsing of the acquisition. On the aforesaid

3 ground alone, the impugned judgment and order passed by the High

Court deserves to be quashed and set aside.

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

appeal succeeds. 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 by the impugned

judgment and order.

Present appeal is accordingly allowed. However, in the facts and

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

Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.

………………………………….J. [M.R. SHAH]

………………………………….J. [C.T. RAVIKUMAR]

NEW DELHI;

MARCH 24, 2023.

4