DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY versus BEENA GUPTA (D) THROUGH LRS. & ORS.

Citation: [2023] 1 S.C.R. 719 · Decided: 16-01-2023 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.R. SHAH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
719
719
DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
v.
BEENA GUPTA (D) THROUGH LRS. & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No.9287 of 2022)
JANUARY 16, 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) –
Lapse of acquisition – On facts, the subject land was acquired in
the year 2007 by drawing panchnama – Same land was sold to the
respondent no. 1 in 2010 by the owner – Writ petition by the
respondent-original writ petitioner seeking declaration that
acquisition proceedings pertaining to subject land is deemed to have
lapsed in view of s.24(2) on the ground that the compensation was
not paid – High Court allowed the petition – On appeal, held:
Subsequent purchaser had no locus to challenge the acquisition
and/or lapsing of the acquisition under the Act, 2013 – High Court
erred in entertaining the writ petition filed by the respondent no.1,
subsequent purchaser who had acquired the right, title or interest
in the land in question subsequent to the acquisition proceedings,
subsequent to passing of the award – Even otherwise, on merits
also and in light of the decision in the case of Indore Development
Authority’s case, the decision of the High Court is unsustainable –
Thus, the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court
is quashed and set aside.
Indore Development Authority versus Manoharlal and
others (2020) 8 SCC 129 : [2020] 3 SCR 1 – followed.
Shiv Kumar & Anr. Vs. Union of India & Ors. (2019)
10 SCC 229; Delhi Administration Through Secretary,
Land and Building vs. Pawan Kumar & Ors., Civil
Appeal No.3646 of 2022; Delhi Development Authority
versus Godfrey Phillips (I) Ltd. & Ors, Civil Appeal
No. 3073 of 2022 – relied on.
Case Law Reference
(2019) 10 SCC 229
relied on
Para 2.3
[2020] 3 SCR 1
followed
Para 2.4, 2.7
   [2023] 1 S.C.R. 719
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
720
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 1 S.C.R.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.9287
of 2022.
From the Judgment and Order dated 01.11.2018 of the High Court
of Delhi at New Delhi in WP (C) No.3986 of 2018.
Ms. Malvika Kapila, Adv. for the Appellant.
Nitin Jain, Chand Qureshi, Ms. Sujeeta Srivastava, Advs. for the
Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
M. R. SHAH, J.
1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment
and order dated 01.11.2018 passed by the High Court of Delhi at New
Delhi in Writ Petition (Civil) No.3986 of 2018 by which the High Court
has allowed the said writ petition preferred by the respondent no.1 herein
– original writ petitioner and has declared that the acquisition with respect
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
‘the Act 2013’), the Delhi Development Authority has preferred the
present appeal.
2. At the outset, it is required to be noted that vide Notification
dated 17.06.2005 issued under the provisions of Section 4 of the Land
Acquisition Act, 1894 large tract of the land measuring about 200 Bighas
falling in Village Mundaka was sought to be acquired. A declaration
under Section 6 of the Act was issued and published thereafter on
31.05.2006. In the present case the dispute is with respect to the land
measuring 1 Bigha and 2 Biswas out of Khasra No. 65/22/1. That, vide
sale deed dated 17.06.2005, the said land was purchased by one Ashok
Kumar and Raj Kumar Sharma. Thereafter, vide order dated 01.08.2005,
the aforesaid persons came to be mutated in the revenue records. That
thereafter vide GPA, Will, Affidavit, Agreement to sell and Receipt dated
11.05.2010 the aforesaid Raj Kumar Sharma sold 275 sq. yrds. land, out
of 11 Biswas owned by him, to respondent no.1 herein – original writ
petitioner. Thus, the respondent no.1 – original writ petitioner can be
said to be subsequent purchaser who acquired the right, title or interest
in the land in question much after the land acquisition proceedings and
the award was declared, which was declared on 31.05.2007.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
721
2.1
The respondent no.1 herein – original writ petitioner filed
the writ petition before the High Court to declare that the
acquisition with respect to the land in question is deemed to
have lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013 on the
ground that the compensation with respect to the land in
question is not paid.
2.2
Though it was specifically the case
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.