GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI versus VIJAY GUPTA & ORS

Citation: [2023] 3 S.C.R. 673 · Decided: 24-03-2023 · 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
673
GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI
v.
VIJAY GUPTA & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 1784 of 2023)
MARCH 24, 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 respondents-subsequent
purchasers declared that the acquisition w.r.t the land in question is
deemed to have lapsed by virtue of s.24(2) – Objection as to the
locus of the subsequent purchasers to challenge the acquisition/
lapsing of the acquisition – Held: A subsequent purchaser has no
locus to challenge the acquisition/lapsing of the acquisition – High
Court erred in entertaining the writ petition preferred by the
respondents praying for lapsing of the acquisition – 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 : 2019 (13) SCALE 698; Delhi Development
Authority v. Godfrey Phillips (I) Ltd. & Ors. (2022) 8
SCC 771; Delhi Administration Thr. Secretary, Land and
Building Department & Ors. v. Pawan Kumar & Ors.
(2022) 7 SCC 470 – relied on.
Government (NCT of Delhi) v. Manav Dharam Trust
and Anr. (2017) 6 SCC 751 : [2017] 4 SCR 232 –
referred to.
Case Law Reference
[2017] 4 SCR 232
referred to
Para 2
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1784
of 2023.
From the Judgment and Order dated 06.08.2018 of the High Court
of Delhi at New Delhi in WP (C) No. 9196 of 2015.
[2023] 3 S.C.R. 673
673
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
674
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 3 S.C.R.
Chandra Prakash, CP Rajwar, Vivek Singh, Ms. Somi Sharma,
Advs. for the Appellant.
Prithvi Pal, Randhir Pandey, Naresh Nagar, Nitin Mishra, Ishaan
Sharma, Advs. for the Respondents.
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
06.08.2018 in Writ Petition (C) No. 9196 of 2015 by which the High
Court has allowed the said writ petition preferred by the contesting
respondents herein 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 has preferred the present
appeal.
2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has
vehemently submitted that it was the specific case on behalf of the
appellant before the High Court that as the original writ petitioners before
the High Court were the subsequent purchasers, they have no locus to
challenge the acquisition / lapsing of acquisition. It is submitted that,
however, despite the above objection, the High Court has entertained
the writ petition at the instance of the subsequent purchasers 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 Act, 2013, relying upon
the decision of this Court in the case of Government (NCT of Delhi)
Vs. Manav Dharam Trust and Anr., (2017) 6 SCC 751. It is
submitted that in view of the decision of this Court in the case of Shiv
Kumar & Anr. Vs. Union of India & Ors., (2019) 10 SCC 229, the
decision in the case of Manav Dharam Trust and Anr. (supra) is not
a good law. It is submitted that as observed and held by this Court in the
case of Shiv Kumar & Anr. (supra) followed by this Court in the
subsequent decisions in the case of Delhi Development Authority
Vs. Godfrey Phillips (I) Ltd. & Ors., (2022) 8 SCC 771 and Delhi
Administration Thr. Secretary, Land and Building Department &
Ors. Vs. Pawan Kumar & Ors., (2022) 7 SCC 470, a subsequent
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
675
purchaser has no locus to challenge the acquisition and / or lapsing of
the acquisition.
Making above submissions and relying upon the above decisions,
it is prayed to allow the present appeal.
3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the contesting
respondents – original writ petitioners is not in a position to dispute that
they had purchased the land in question subsequent to the acquisition
proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Even, the learned
counsel appearing on behalf of the original writ petitioners is not in a
position to point out any valid title deed. From the averments in the
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.