DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITYversusMGS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED & ORS

388                        [2023]
                SUPREME COURT     2 S.C.R. 388
                               REPORTS                      [2023] 2 S.C.R.


A                     DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
                                         v.
                     MGS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED & ORS.
                           (Civil Appeal No. 944 of 2023)
B                            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) –
C     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
D     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.
E
              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)
F             – referred to.
                              Case Law Reference
      [2017] 4 SCR 232                 referred to             Para 5.2
              CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.944 of
G     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.
H
                                        388
     DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY v. MGS (INDIA)                                 389
               PRIVATE LIMITED & ORS.

       Sanjay Poddar, Sr. Adv., Nitin Mishra, Ishaan Sharma, Govind             A
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.                                                            B

      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       C
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.                                                            D
        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        E
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    F
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.            G
       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
                                                                                H
390             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                               [2023] 2 S.C.R.


A     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 Court.
B
             4. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective
      parties.
             5. It is not in dispute that the original writ petitioner is the subsequent
      purchaser, who purchased the land in question subsequent to the acquisition
C     proceedings and even after the award was declared. Therefore, being a
      subsequent purchaser, as observed and held by this Court in catena of
      decisions, more particularly, in the case of Shiv Kumar & Anr. (supra)
      and Godfrey Phillips (I) Ltd. & Ors. (supra) and other subsequent
      decisions, subsequent purchaser has no locus to challenge the lapsing of
      the acquisition.
D
             5.1 The submission on behalf of the respondent that the decision
      of this Court in the case of Shiv Kumar & Anr. (supra) shall not be
      applicable as in that case, the original writ petitioner claimed the title on
      the basis of a general power of attorney and in the present case, the
      subsequent purchaser purchased the property by registered sale deed is
E     concerned, it is required to be noted that the law laid down by this Court
      in the aforesaid decision is that a subsequent purchaser has no locus to
      challenge the acquisition. In the case of Godfrey Phillips (I) Ltd. &
      Ors. (supra), it is specifically observed and held that the subsequent
      purchaser has no locus to pray for lapsing of the acquisition.
F            5.2 Now, so far as the reliance placed upon the decision of this
      Court in the case of Manav Dharam Trust and Anr. (supra) is
      concerned, it is required to be noted that the said decision is held to be
      per incuriam by this Court in the aforesaid decisions.
             5.3 From the impugned judgment and order passed by the High
G     Court, it appears that though before the High Court and so stated in the
      counter, an objection was raised on maintainability of the writ petition, at
      the instance of the original writ petitioner – subsequent purchaser, the
      same has not been dealt with by the High Court. The High Court ought
      to have dealt with the said aspect. Be that it may, the fact remains that
      the respondent being a subsequent purchaser had no locus to pray for
H
     DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY v. MGS (INDIA)                                   391
        PRIVATE LIMITED & ORS. [M. R. SHAH, J.]

lapsing of the acquisition as observed and held by this Court in the              A
aforesaid decisions. Therefore, the impugned judgment and order passed
by the High Court is unsustainable.
      6. 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. There shall not be any            B
deemed lapse of the acquisition proceedings with respect to the land in
question as observed and held by the High Court.
      Present appeals are accordingly allowed. However, in the facts
and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.
       Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.                      C


Ankit Gyan                                                     Appeals allowed.
(Assisted by : Abhishek Pratap Singh, LCRA)


                                                                                  D




                                                                                  E




                                                                                  F




                                                                                  G




                                                                                  H