DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITYversusMANPREET SINGH & ORS

                           [2023] 1 S.C.R. 737                          737


               DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY                              A
                                   v.
                     MANPREET SINGH & ORS.
                     (Civil Appeal No. 277 of 2023)
                          JANUARY 16, 2023                              B

           [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         C
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     D
– 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.            E
        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
                                                                        F
        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      G

(2017) 6 SCC 751                 referred to              Para 6.1
        CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.277 of
2023.
                                                                        H
                                  737
738            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2023] 1 S.C.R.


A            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
B     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
C     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
D     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
E
      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
F     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
G     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
H     Appeal No. 3073 of 2022, being a subsequent purchaser, he had no
DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY v. MANPREET SINGH &                                  739
               ORS. [M. R. SHAH, J.]

locus to challenge the acquisition / lapsing of the acquisition proceedings      A
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
                                                                                 B
the aforesaid decisions.
        4. Shri Gopal Sankaranarayanan, learned senior counsel,
however, has submitted that the decision of this Court in the case of
Shiv Kumar & Anr. Vs. Union of India & Ors., (2019) 10 SCC
229, which has been considered by this Court while allowing Civil
Appeal No. 3073 of 2022 - Delhi Development Authority Vs.                        C
Godfrey Phillips (I) Ltd. & Ors. requires re-consideration as certain
relevant aspects under the Act, 2013 has not been dealt with and/or
considered. However, he is not disputing that the original writ petitioner
is a subsequent purchaser, who acquired the right, title and interest in the
property in the year 2018 and/or even subsequent to Act, 2013 coming             D
into force.
        5. We have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties
at length.
        6. At the outset, it is required to be noted that it was the specific
case on behalf of the appellants before the High Court that the original
                                                                                 E
writ petitioner is a subsequent purchaser, who has acquired the right,
title or interest in the land in the year 2018. The original writ petitioner
was not the recorded owner at the time when the award with respect to
the land in question under the provisions of Land Acquisition Act, 1894
(hereinafter referred to as “Act, 1894”) was issued. From the material
on record, it appears that before the High Court, the original writ petitioner   F
claimed the right, title or interest on the basis of the Assignment Deed of
2015. In the present case, the notification under Section 4 of the Act,
1894 was issued on 25.11.1980 and the award was declared on
05.06.1987. Therefore, the short question, which is posed for the
consideration of this Court is:-
                                                                                 G
        Whether the original writ petitioner being a subsequent purchaser
        had locus to challenge the acquisition and/or lapsing of the
        acquisition?
        6.1 The aforesaid issue is now not res integra in view of the
Three Judge Bench decision of this Court in the case of Shiv Kumar &
                                                                                 H
740              SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2023] 1 S.C.R.


A     Anr. (supra), which has been subsequently followed by another Bench
      of this Court in the cases of Godfrey Phillips (I) Ltd. & Ors. (supra)
      and Pawan Kumar and Ors. (supra). The decision of this Court in the
      case of Shiv Kumar & Anr. (supra) is a Three Judge Bench decision
      by which a contrary view taken by the Two Judge Bench of this Court in
      the case of Government (NCT of Delhi) Vs. Manav Dharam Trust
B
      and Anr., (2017) 6 SCC 751 has not been accepted and is found to be
      not a good law. That thereafter after following the Three Judge Bench
      decision in the case of Shiv Kumar & Anr. (supra) in the cases of
      Godfrey Phillips (I) Ltd. & Ors. (supra) and Pawan Kumar and
      Ors. (supra), this Court has subsequently observed and held that a
C     subsequent purchaser has no locus to challenge the acquisition
      proceedings / lapsing of the acquisition under the Act, 2013.
             6.2 In that view of the matter, the High Court has committed a
      serious error in entertaining the writ petition at the instance of the
      respondent No. 1 herein – original writ petitioner and has materially
D     erred in declaring that the acquisition with respect to the land in question
      is deemed to have lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013 in a writ
      petition filed by the respondent No. 1 herein – original writ petitioner,
      who is a subsequent purchaser. Under the circumstances and on that
      ground alone, the impugned common judgment and order passed by the
      High Court is required to be quashed and set aside.
E
             7. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, both
      these appeals succeed. The impugned judgment and order passed by
      the High Court is hereby quashed and set aside. The original Writ
      Petition No. 11230 of 2015 filed before the High Court stands dismissed.
             Present appeals are accordingly allowed. However, in the facts
F     and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.
             Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of.

      Nidhi Jain                                                     Appeals allowed.
      (Assisted by : Abhishek Agnihotri, LCRA)
G




H