DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY versus GODFREY PHILLIPS (I) LTD AND ORS.

Citation: [2022] 19 S.C.R. 1193 · Decided: 06-05-2022 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: HEMANT GUPTA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 7 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1193
DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
v.
GODFREY PHILLIPS (I) LTD AND ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 3073 of 2022)
MAY 06, 2022
[HEMANT GUPTA AND V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN, JJ.]
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - s. 6, s.4, 5 - Right to Fair
Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation
and Resettlement Act, 2013 – s. 24(2) –Original land owners entered
into agreement to sell with the Respondent No. 1 on 25.9.1990 for
the land measuring 28 Bigha 08 Biswa – The said land was in the
process of acquisition which was started in 1980 vide notification
u/s. 6 and s. 4 of the 1894 Act – The agreement to sell recited that;
‘acquisition process was challenged before the High Court, wherein
the entire land was released from the acquisition and the Delhi
Administration has not filed appeal and at present the above lands
are free from acquisition’ – Land Acquisition Collector had taken
possession and paid compensation to the owners, then the
compensation has been paid back - The respondent No.1 purchased
the land vide sale deed dated 30.8.1991 and 27.2.1991 – Respondent
No. 1 filed Writ Petition for a declaration that the lands purchased
by them are free from and outside the scope of acquisition
proceedings, which was dismissed – Special Leave Petition was filed
against the order, which was also dismissed – Respondent no.1 filed
another Writ Petition after the commencement of the 2013 Act for
quashing of the notification u/s 4 and 6 of the 1894 Act, and claimed
the Mandamus to handover the peaceful possession of land – In
absence of any proof of encashment of cheque (the paid back
amount of compensation), the High Court directed the purchaser to
pay the amount of Rs. 16,61,774/- and such amount stands paid
and held that proceedings stand lapsed in terms of Section 24(2) of
2013 Act – The Appellant challenged the said order before Supreme
Court – Held: The purchaser has no right to claim lapsing of
acquisition proceedings – Original land owner filed Writ Petition
challenging the notification u/s. 6 of 1894 Act, which was dismissed
– Special Leave Petition was filed challenging the order, which was
[2022] 19 S.C.R. 1193
1193
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1194
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 19 S.C.R.
withdrawn – It was the conscious decision of land owner not to
continue with SLP – All the objections which were available to the
original land owner including the purchaser up to that stage cannot
be permitted to be raised again – No right confer on the other land
owners who have not disputed the acquisition proceedings on the
ground of lack of effective hearing of objections under Section 5-
A of the Act – Original land owner never filed any objections under
Section 5-A of the Act, the purchaser cannot seek the relief which
was not available even to the original land owner – The purchaser
had in fact filed a Writ of Mandamus for delivering the possession
of the entire acquired land – Such claim of Mandamus shows that
the purchaser is out of possession –Therefore, the condition in Indore
Development Authority for lapsing of the acquisition is not satisfied
– Appellant directed to refund the amount of Rs.16,61,774/- to the
purchaser, without any interest as such deposit was a voluntary offer
to deposit.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD:
1.1 The purchaser has purchased the property knowing fully
well that the vendor has not disputed the acquisition proceedings.
But on the basis of an order passed in Balbir Singh, it was conveyed
and accepted by the purchaser, that the acquisition stands quashed
and original land owner was in possession of the land. Since Sudan
Singh, affirming the order in Balbir Singh has not been approved
by this Court in the three judgments referred hereinabove (Abhey
Ram, Gurdip Singh Uban-I and Gurdip Singh Uban-II), no right
would accrue to the original land owner or the purchaser. The
High Court in the impugned order has not noticed any of the
three judgments of this Court in Abhey Ram, Gurdip Singh Uban-
I and Gurdip Singh Uban-II nullifying the effect of Balbir Singh
and instead ordered the purchaser to deposit twice of the amount
paid to the original land owner. The condition of payment of
compensation in Balbir Singh by the land owners does not survive
in view of the fact that such judgment has not been approved by
this Court. [Para 38][1220-G-H; 1221-A-B]
1.2 In the present case, as per the purchaser itself, the
possession of Part A land comprising in Khasra No. 384 (4-6),
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1195
385 (4-6) and 390

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