GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANR versus M/S. BEADS PROPERTIES PVT. LTD. & ORS.

Citation: [2023] 2 S.C.R. 234 · Decided: 13-03-2023 · 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
234
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 2 S.C.R.
GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANR.
v.
M/S. BEADS PROPERTIES PVT. LTD. & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 1522 of 2023)
MARCH 13, 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) –
High Court allowing the writ petition filed by respondent No.1, a
subsequent purchaser declared that the acquisition w.r.t the land in
question is deemed to have lapsed by virtue of s.24(2) – Whether
the subsequent purchaser has locus to challenge the acquisition/
lapsing of the acquisition – Held: No – Thus, the High Court erred
in entertaining the writ petition preferred by the respondent No.1
being a subsequent purchaser and particularly when the original
owners/recorded owners did not challenge the acquisition at all –
There shall not be any deemed lapse of the acquisition proceedings
w.r.t the land in question – Impugned judgment is quashed and set
aside.
Shiv Kumar & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors., (2019) 10
SCC 229; Delhi Development Authority v. Godfrey
Phillips (I) Ltd. & Ors., Civil Appeal No. 3073 of 2022
– relied on.
Case Law Reference
(2019) 10 SCC 229
relied on
Para 2.2
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1522
of 2023.
From the Judgment and Order dated 24.08.2015 of the High Court
of Delhi at New Delhi in WP (C) No. 6963 of 2014.
Atul Kumar, Mrs. Sweety Singh, Mrs. Archana Kumari, Rahul
Pandey, Advs. for the Appellants.
Ms. Malvika Kapila, Ms. Tanwangi Shukla, Advs. for the
Respondents.
[2023] 2 S.C.R. 234
234
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
235
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
24.08.2015 in Writ Petition (C) No. 6963 of 2014 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 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 Government of NCT of Delhi and Anr.
have preferred the present appeal.
2. From the counter affidavit filed before the High Court, it was
the specific case on behalf of the appellants / Land Acquisition collector
that the recorded owners of the land in question are Parvati Jain, Lajja
Ram and D. L. Parti and since the recorded / original owners never
challenge the acquisition proceedings, the original writ petitioner had no
right to challenge the same. Even from the averments in the writ petition
and even according to the original writ petitioner, the original writ petitioner
purchased the land in question after the notification under Section 4 was
issued. At this stage, it is required to be noted that the notification under
Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was issued on 25.11.1980
and the declaration under Section 6 of the Act was made on 07.06.1985
and the award under Section 11 of the Act, 1894 was published on
09.07.1987.
2.1 From the averments in the writ petition (paragraph 3), the
original writ petitioner purchased the lands thereafter, i.e., in the year
1990. Therefore, it was the case on behalf of the appellant before the
High Court that the original writ petitioner being the subsequent purchaser
had no locus to challenge the acquisition / lapsing of the acquisition.
Without adverting to on the aforesaid issue, the High Court has entertained
the said writ petition and has allowed the same.
2.2 Whether the subsequent purchaser has a locus to challenge
the acquisition / lapsing of the acquisition is now not res integra in view
of the decisions of this Court in the case of Shiv Kumar & Anr. Vs.
Union of India & Ors., (2019) 10 SCC 229 and Delhi Development
GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANR. v. M/S. BEADS
PROPERTIES PVT. LTD. & ORS.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
236
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 2 S.C.R.
Authority Vs. Godfrey Phillips (I) Ltd. & Ors., Civil Appeal No.
3073 of 2022.
2.3 In the aforesaid decisions and the other subsequent decisions,
it is specifically observed and held that the subsequent purchaser has no
locus to challenge the acquisition / lapsing of the acquisition. Under the
circumstances, the High Court has erred in entertaining the writ petition
preferred by the respondent No.
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.