DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY versus MGS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED & ORS

Citation: [2023] 2 S.C.R. 388 · Decided: 17-02-2023 · 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
388
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 2 S.C.R.
   [2023] 2 S.C.R. 388
388
DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
v.
MGS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 944 of 2023)
FEBRUARY 17, 2023
[M. R. SHAH, C. T. RAVIKUMAR AND
SANJAY KAROL, JJ.]
Right to far compensation and Transparency in Land
Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 – S.24(2) –
High Court allowed the writ petition and declared that the acquisition
with respect to the land in question is deemed to have lapsed by
virtue of s.24(2) of the 2013 Act –Before the Supreme Court, the
appellant-DDA contended that the original writ petitioner before
the High Court was the subsequent purchaser, who admittedly
purchased the property after the acquisition proceedings commenced
and award was declared –Held: The respondent being a subsequent
purchaser had no locus to pray for lapsing of the acquisition –
Therefore, the impugned judgment of the High Court unsustainable
–Accordingly, set aside – There shall not be any deemed lapse of
acquisition proceedings with respect to the land in question.
Government (NCT of Delhi) Vs. Manav Dharam Trust
and Anr., (2017) 6 SCC 751 : [2017] 4 SCR 232; 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)
– referred to.
Case Law Reference
[2017] 4 SCR 232
referred to
Para 5.2
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.944 of
2023.
From the Judgment and Order dated 20.07.2015 of the High Court
of Delhi at New Delhi in WP (C) No.910 of 2015.
With
Civil Appeal No.947 of 2023.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
389
Sanjay Poddar, Sr. Adv., Nitin Mishra, Ishaan Sharma, Govind
Kumar, Ms. Sujeeta Srivastava, Bharat Arora, Abhishek Singh, Gourav
Arora, Vedya Partners for M/s. Vedya Partners, 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 dated
20.07.2015 in Writ Petition (C) No. 910 of 2015 by which 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
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 Delhi Development
Authority (DDA) as well as Government of NCT of Delhi have preferred
the present appeals.
2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants has
vehemently submitted that the original writ petitioner before the High
Court was the subsequent purchaser, who admittedly purchased the
property – land in question after the acquisition proceedings commenced
and the award was declared. It is submitted that therefore, the original
writ petitioner being a subsequent purchaser had no locus to challenge
the acquisition proceedings and/or lapsing of the acquisition proceedings.
It is submitted that the aforesaid objection was taken before the High
Court and even it was specifically mentioned in the counter before the
High Court, however, the Hon’ble High Court has not decided the locus
of the original writ petitioner to pray for lapsing of the acquisition being
a subsequent purchaser. Reliance is placed on the decisions of this Court
in the case of Shiv Kumar & Anr. Vs. Union of India & Ors., (2019)
10 SCC 229; Delhi Development Authority Vs. Godfrey Phillips
(I) Ltd. & Ors., Civil Appeal No. 3073 of 2022 and the subsequent
decision in which the aforesaid two decisions have been relied upon.
3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent – original
writ petitioner though is not disputing that the original writ petitioner was
the subsequent purchaser and purchased the land subsequent to the
acquisition proceedings. However, he has submitted that the decision of
this Court in the case of Shiv Kumar & Anr. (supra) shall not be
DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY v. MGS (INDIA)
PRIVATE LIMITED & ORS.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
390
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 2 S.C.R.
applicable inasmuch as in that case, the original writ petitioner had no
title and he claimed the title on the basis of the general power of attorney.
It is submitted that at the relevant time, the decision of this Court in the
case of Government (NCT of Delhi) Vs. Manav Dharam Trust
and Anr., (2017) 6 SCC 751 was on the point, which came to be relied
upon by the High Cour
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.