DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY versus ASHA PRAKASH

Citation: [2023] 1 S.C.R. 919 · Decided: 20-01-2023 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.R. SHAH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
919
919
DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
v.
ASHA PRAKASH
(Civil Appeal No. 364 of 2023)
JANUARY 20, 2023
[M. R. SHAH AND C. T. RAVIKUMAR, JJ.]
Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition,
Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 – s.24(2) –Writ petition
was preferred by original writ petitioner-subsequent purchaser –
High Court relying upon Pune Municipal Corporation & Anr. vs
Harakchand Misrimal Solanki & Ors allowed the writ petition preferred
by the respondent/original writ petitioners and held that the
acquisition proceedings in respect of land in question is deemed to
have lapsed u/s.24(2) of 2013 Act as compensation was not paid to
the original landowners – On appeal, held : The subsequent
purchaser has no locus to challenge the acquisition/lapse of
acquisition – Thus, High Court committed an error in entertaining
the writ petition preferred by the respondent no.1 – Also, applying
the law laid by Supreme Court in Indore Development Authority, which
has overruled the decision in Pune Municipal Corporation, to the facts
of the instant case – Impugned judgment and order of the High
Court unsustainable – Appeal allowed.
Indore Development Authority vs. Manoharlal & Ors.
(2020) 8 SCC 129 : [2020] 3 SCR 1 – followed.
Government (NCT of Delhi) vs. Manav Dharam Trust
and Anr., (2017) 6 SCC 751– held not good law.
Pune Municipal Corporation & Anr. vs. Harakchand
Misrimal Solanki & ors (2014) 3 SCC 183 : [2014] 1
SCR 783; Shiv Kumar and Anr. vs. Union of India and
Ors., (2019) 10 SCC 229; Delhi Development Authority
vs. Godfrey Philips (I) Ltd. & Ors., (Civil Appeal No.
3073 of 2022 decided by the Supreme Court); Delhi
Administration Thr. Secretary, Land and Building
Department & Ors. vs. Pawan Kumar & Ors., (Civil
Appeal No. 3646 of 2022 decided by the Supreme
Court) – referred to.
   [2023] 1 S.C.R. 919
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
920
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 1 S.C.R.
Case Law Reference
[2020] 3 SCR 1
followed
Para 4, 5
[2014] 1 SCR 783
referred to
Para 2, 4
[2017] 4 SCR 232
referred to
Para 2,3
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.364 of
2023.
From the Judgment and Order dated 04.01.2018 of the High Court
of Delhi at New Delhi in WP (C) No.9545 of 2015.
Atul Kumar, Ms. Sweety Singh, Ms. Archana Kumari, Rahul
Pandey, Avs Kadyan, Rajiv Ranjan, Mishra Saurabh, Ms. Sujeeta
Srivastava, Nishit Agrawal, Ms. Kanishka Mittal, Ms. Vanya Agrawal,
Ashwani Kumar, Anshay Dhatwalia, Ms. Binu Tamta, Ms. Smita Maan,
Nitin Mishra, Ishaan Sharma, Mohit Kumar Gupta, Shekhar Yadav, Ms.
Iti Sharma, Rahul Bhatia, Rachita Kadyan, N. S. Vashist, Gagan Gupta,
Ms. Astha Tyagi, Dinesh Chander Trehan, Ms. Diksha Narula, Advs.
for the appearing parties.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
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. 9545 of 2015 by which the High Court has allowed the
said writ petition and has declared that the acquisition proceedings initiated
under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as “Act,
1894”) with regard to the land in question is deemed to have lapsed
under 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 Delhi Development Authority
(DDA) has preferred the present appeal.
2. Having heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
respective parties and on going through the impugned judgment and
order passed by the High Court, it appears that a specific plea was
raised before the High Court on the maintainability of the writ petition
by the original writ petitioner as he was the subsequent purchaser.
However, relying upon the decision of this Court in the case of
Government (NCT of Delhi) Vs. Manav Dharam Trust and Anr.,
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
921
(2017) 6 SCC 751, the High Court has overruled the said objection and
thereafter has entertained the writ petition preferred by the respondent
No. 1 herein – original writ petitioner – subsequent purchaser and
thereafter after following the decision of this Court in the case of Pune
Municipal Corporation and Anr. Vs. Harakchand Misirimal
Solanki and Ors., (2014) 3 SCC 183, the High Court has allowed the
said writ petition and has declared that the acquisition with respect to
the land in question is deemed to have lapsed as compensation has not
been paid to the original landowners.
3. 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.