DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY versus MANPREET SINGH & ORS

Citation: [2023] 1 S.C.R. 737 · Decided: 16-01-2023 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.R. SHAH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
737
737
DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
v.
MANPREET SINGH & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 277 of 2023)
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) –
Land acquisition, when deemed to have lapsed – Writ petition by
the respondent-original writ petitioners, being subsequent purchasers
seeking declaration that acquisition proceedings pertaining to
subject land is deemed to have lapsed in view of s.24(2) – High
Court allowed the writ petition – Sustainability of – Held: Not
sustainable – Subsequent purchaser has no locus to challenge the
acquisition and/or lapsing of the acquisition under the Act of 2013
– Original writ petitioner was not the recorded owner at the time
when the award in the year 1987 – Original writ petitioner is a
subsequent purchaser who has acquired the right, title or interest
in the land in the year 2018 – Thus, the order passed by the High
Court is quashed and set aside – Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
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,
Delhi Administration Thr. Secretary, Land and Building
Department & Ors. Vs. Pawan Kumar & Ors., - Civil
Appeal No. 3646 of 2022 – relied on.
Government (NCT of Delhi) vs. Manav Dharam Trust
and Anr. (2017) 6 SCC 751 – referred to.
Case Law Reference
(2019) 10 SCC 229
relied on
Para 6.1
(2017) 6 SCC 751
referred to
Para 6.1
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.277 of
2023.
   [2023] 1 S.C.R. 737
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
738
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 1 S.C.R.
From the Judgment and Order dated 30.01.2018 of the High Court
of Delhi at New Delhi in WP (C) No.11230 of 2015.
With
Civil Appeal No.278 of 2023.
Gopal Sankaranarayanan, Sr. Adv., Ashwani Kumar, Nishit
Agrawal, Ms. Kanishka Mittal, Ms. Arti Singh, Aakash Deep Singh
Roda, Ms. Pooja Singh, Basant Pal Singh, Ms. Sujeeta Srivastava, Ms.
Monika, Sumeer Sodhi, Aman Nandrajog, Dhruv Wadhwa, Gopal Jha,
Ms. Astha Tyagi, Dinesh Chander Trehan, Ms. Diksha Narula, D. P.
Singh Yadav, Ms. Smita Maan, Sumit Bansal, Gagan Gupta, Udaibir
Kochar, C. Solomon, Shaziya Ansari, S. Nagarajan, Aftab Rasheed,
Aftab Ali Khan, Advs. for the appearing parties.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
M. R. SHAH, J.
1. As common question of law and facts arise in these appeals, as
both these appeals arise out of the impugned judgment and order passed
by the High Court, both these appeals are being decided and disposed of
together by this common judgment and order.
2. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment
and order passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi dated
30.01.2018 passed in Writ Petition (C) No. 11230 of 2015 by which on
the writ petition filed by the respondent No. 1 herein – original writ
petitioner, the High Court has allowed the said writ petition and has held
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 “Act, 2013”), the beneficiary -
Delhi Development Authority (DDA) and the acquiring body –
Government of NCT of Delhi have preferred the present appeals.
3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants has
vehemently submitted that as such the respondent No. 1 herein – original
writ petitioner is the subsequent purchaser, who purchased the property
even after the Act, 2013 coming into force and therefore as observed
and held by this Court in the case of Delhi Administration Thr.
Secretary, Land and Building Department and Ors. Vs. Pawan
Kumar and Ors., Civil Appeal No. 3646 of 2022 and Delhi
Development Authority Vs. Godfrey Phillips (I) Ltd. & Ors., Civil
Appeal No. 3073 of 2022, being a subsequent purchaser, he had no
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
739
locus to challenge the acquisition / lapsing of the acquisition proceedings
under the Act, 2013. It is submitted that therefore, the High Court has
materially erred in declaring that the acquisition with respect to the land
in question is deemed to have lapsed in a writ petition filed by the
respondent No. 1 being a subsequent purchaser, who as such had no
locus to challenge the acquisition as observed and held by this Court in
the aforesaid decisions.
4. Shri Gopal Sankaranarayanan, learned
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.