GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI versus SUNIL JAIN & ORS

Citation: [2023] 1 S.C.R. 683 · Decided: 13-01-2023 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.R. SHAH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
683
683
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI
v.
SUNIL JAIN & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 280 of 2023)
JANUARY 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)–
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 in view of the fact that the possession has not been taken
over and the compensation is not paid and relying upon the decision
of this Court in Pune Municipal Corporation’s case allowed the writ
petition– Sustainability of – Held: Not sustainable – Subsequent
purchaser has no locus to challenge the acquisition and/or lapsing
of the acquisition–Furthermore, possession could not be taken over
due to the pending litigation initiated by the original land owner
challenging the acquisition which ended upto this Court, they cannot
be entitled to the benefit of lapse – Also, Pune Municipal Corporation
and Anr’s case has been overruled in the Indore Development
Authority’s case – Thus, order passed by the High Court is quashed
and set aside – Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
Indore Development Authority Vs. Manoharlal and Ors,
(2020) 8 SCC 129 – followed.
Pune Municipal Corporation and Anr. Vs. Harakchand
Misirimal Solanki and Ors. (2014) 3 SCC 183:[2014]
(1) SCR 783; 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
- referred to.
   [2023] 1 S.C.R. 683
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
684
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 1 S.C.R.
Case Law Reference
(2014) 1 SCR 783
referred to
Para 2
(2019) 10 SCC 229
referred to
Para 2.2, Para 2.3
(2020) 8 SCC 129
followed
Para 2.2. 2.3
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.280 of
2023.
From the Judgment and Order dated 17.07.2017 of the High Court
of Delhi at New Delhi in Civil Writ Petition No.2989 of 2016.
Ms. Astha Tyagi, Dinesh Chander Trehan, Ms. Diksha Narula,
D. P. Singh Yadav, Advs. for the Appellant.
Ms. Sunieta Ojha, 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 dated 17.07.2017 passed by the High Court of Delhi at New
Delhi in Writ Petition (Civil) No.2989 of 2016 by which the High Court
has allowed the said writ petition preferred by the private respondents
herein – original writ petitioners and has declared that the acquisition
with respect to the land in question is deemed to have lapsed under
Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in
Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter
referred to as ‘the Act 2013’), the Government of NCT of Delhi has
preferred the present appeal.
2. Having gone through the impugned judgment and order passed
by the High Court and para 5, it appears that the original writ petitioners
being the subsequent purchasers of the land in question they do not
derive any right or title to the land at the time of Award and thereafter
cannot challenge the acquisition proceedings. Therefore, it was the
specific case that the original petitioners had no locus to file the writ
petition and seek any relief with respect to the acquisition. From the
counter filed before the High Court it appears that it was also the case
on behalf of the appellant and so stated in the counter affidavit that the
possession of the land in question could not be taken over due to the
pending litigation which ended upto this Court upholding the acquisition
proceedings. However, thereafter and despite the above and without
even considering the locus of the original writ petitioners to challenge
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
685
the acquisition/lapsing of the acquisition, solely relying upon the fact that
the possession has not been taken over and the compensation is not paid
and relying upon the decision of this Court in the case of Pune Municipal
Corporation and Anr. Vs. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki and Ors.,
(2014) 3 SCC 183, the High Court has allowed the writ petition and
has declared that the acquisition with respect to the land in question is
deemed to have lapsed und

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