DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY versus DAMINI WADHWA & ORS.

Citation: [2022] 16 S.C.R. 602 · Decided: 04-11-2022 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.R. SHAH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 3 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
602
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 16 S.C.R.
[2022] 16 S.C.R. 602
602
DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
v.
DAMINI WADHWA & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 7962 of 2022)
NOVEMBER 04, 2022
[M. R. SHAH AND M. M. SUNDRESH, JJ.]
Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land
Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 – s.24(2) –
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – ss.4, 6 – High Court declared that the
acquisition w.r.t the lands in question is deemed to have lapsed by
virtue of s.24(2) – On appeal, held: Respondent-original writ
petitioner claimed the right, title, or interest in the lands in question
on the basis of the Agreement to Sell of year 2016 – Agreement to
Sell by itself does not confer any right, title, or interest – Even the
appellant doubted the genuineness of the transaction of the
Agreement to Sell and a specific plea was taken on the locus of the
original writ petitioner, however, the High Court did not deal with
the said issue – Further, notification u/s.4, 1894 Act was issued in
1980 and the Agreement to Sell was of the year 2016– Thus, the
original writ petitioner allegedly derived the interest in the lands in
question much after the acquisition proceedings were initiated and
therefore, can be said to be a subsequent purchaser – Subsequent
purchaser has no right to claim lapse of acquisition proceedings–
Thus, being a subsequent purchaser and/or having acquired the
interest in the lands in question subsequently, the original writ
petitioner did not have any right to claim lapse of acquisition
proceedings u/s.24(2) – Furthermore, as held in Indore Development
Authority v. Manoharlal and Ors., there cannot be any lapse of
acquisition u/s.24(2),2013 Act on the ground that possession was
not taken and/or compensation was not deposited/tendered due to
the pending litigations– Thus, on merits also, the High Court erred
in declaring lapse of acquisition– Impugned judgment set asid–
Writ petition filed before High Court is dismissed.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
Held: 1.1 The respondent No.1–original writ petitioner filed
the writ petition and claimed the right, title, or interest in the
lands in question on the basis of the Agreement to Sell dated
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
603
22.05.2016. Agreement to Sell by itself does not confer any right,
title, or interest. Even in the counter affidavit, the appellant
doubted the genuineness of the transaction of the Agreement to
Sell dated 22.05.2016. A specific plea was taken on behalf of the
DDA on the locus of the original writ petitioner. However, the
High Court has not at all dealt with and/or considered the issue
with respect to the locus of the original writ petitioner. Even
considering the fact that the Agreement to Sell was of the year
2016 and considering the fact that the notification under Section
4 of the Act, 1894 was issued on 25.11.1980, therefore, it is
apparent that the original writ petitioner allegedly derived the
interest in the lands in question much after the acquisition
proceedings were initiated and therefore, the respondent No. 1
original writ petitioner can be said to be subsequent purchaser.
Subsequent purchaser has no right to claim lapse of acquisition
proceedings. Under the circumstances and even accepting the
case on behalf of the original writ petitioner that she might have
acquired some interest on the basis of the Agreement to Sell
dated 22.05.2016, being a subsequent purchaser and/or having
acquired the interest in the lands in question subsequently, she
was not having any right to claim lapse of acquisition proceedings
under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013. Under the circumstances,
the High Court erred in entertaining the writ petition preferred
by the respondent No.1 – original writ petitioner claiming lapse
of acquisition proceedings under the Act, 2013. [Paras 7,
7.1][607-G-H; 608-A-F]
1.2 Even otherwise on merits also, the High Court has erred
in declaring / ordering lapse of acquisition under Section 24(2) of
the Act, 2013. The High Court has not at all appreciated the fact
that the large parcels of the lands were acquired, which were
under the same notification/ different notifications. The acquisition
proceedings under the Act, 1894 were the subject matter of
litigations and the acquisition proceedings came to be confirmed
by this Court. The possession of some parcels of the land could
not be taken over because of the pending litigations and even
the compensation could not be deposited due to pending
litigations. Under the cir

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