DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITYversusNARENDRA KUMAR JAIN & ORS.

870                       [2023]
               SUPREME COURT     4 S.C.R. 870
                              REPORTS                      [2023] 4 S.C.R.


A                  DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
                                        v.
                     NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN & ORS.
                         (Civil Appeal No.3340 of 2023)
B                                MAY 04, 2023
         [M. R. SHAH AND AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH, JJ.]
            Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land
      Acquisition, rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 – s.24(2) –
      High Court declared that the land in question deemed to have lapsed
C
      u/s. 24(2) of the 2013 Act – It was the case on behalf of the LAC
      that possession of the land was taken over and the original writ
      petitioners are not the recorded owners, they were subsequent
      purchasers – However, High Court allowed the writ petition relying
      on the case of Govt. of NCT of Delhi v. Manav Dharma Trust – On
D     appeal, held: The decision in the case of Manav Dharma Trust was
      held to be not a good law in view of the decision of the Supreme
      Court in Shiv Kumar & Anr. V. Union of India & Ors. and Delhi
      Development Authority v. Godfrey Philips (I) Ltd. & Ors. – In both
      the said cases, it was specifically held that the subsequent purchaser
      has no locus to challenge the acquisition and/or pay for deemed
E
      lapse of acquisition – Impugned Judgment and order of the High
      Court unsustainable.
            Govt. of NCT of Delhi v. Manav Dharma Trust (2017) 6
            SCC 751 : [2017] 4 SCR 232 – referred to.
F           Shiv Kumar & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors. (2019) 10
            SCC 229; Delhi Development Authority v. Godfrey
            Philips (I) Ltd. & Ors. Civil Appeal No. 3073/2022 –
            relied on.
                             Case Law Reference
G     [2017] 4 SCR 232                referred to             Para 2
            CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.3340
      of 2023.
            From the Judgment and Order dated 20.07.2018 of the High Court
      of Delhi at New Delhi in WP (C) No.9745 of 2015.
H
                                       870
DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY v. NARENDRA KUMAR                                  871
                     JAIN

       Ms. Manika Tripathy, Ashutosh Kaushik, Manish Vashist, Advs.            A
for the Appellant.
      Ms. Sujeeta Srivastava, Adv. for the Respondents.
      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 in Writ Petition
(C) No. 9745 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 under Section 24(2) of the           C
Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition,
Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as
“Act, 2013”), the Delhi Development Authority has preferred the present
appeal.
       2. From the impugned judgment and order passed by the High              D
Court it appears that and even from the counter filed on behalf of the
LAC before the High Court, it was the case on behalf of the LAC that
possession of the land in question was taken over on 12.07.2004. It was
also the case on behalf of the LAC that original writ petitioners –
respondents herein are not recorded owners and they are the subsequent
purchaser. However, thereafter, relying upon the decision of this Court        E
in the case of Govt. of NCT of Delhi Vs. Manav Dharma Trust
(2017) 6 SCC 751, the High Court has overruled the objection that the
writ petitioners being subsequent purchaser has no locus to challenge
the acquisition and/or to pray for deemed lapse of acquisition, thereafter,
on the ground that the compensation has not been paid/tendered, the            F
High Court has allowed the writ petition.
       3. However, it is required to be noted that the decision of this
Court in the case of Manav Dharma Trust (supra) which has been
relied upon by the High Court while passing the impugned judgment and
order, is held to be not a good law in view of the decision of this Court in
                                                                               G
the case of Shiv Kumar & Anr. Vs. Union of India & Ors. (2019)
10 SCC 229 and subsequent decision of this Court in the case of Delhi
Development Authority Vs. Godfrey Philips (I) Ltd. & Ors. Civil
Appeal No. 3073/2022.

                                                                               H
872              SUPREME COURT REPORTS                        [2023] 4 S.C.R.


A            4. In the case of Shiv Kumar (supra) and Godfrey Philips (I)
      Ltd. (supra), it is specifically observed and held that the subsequent
      purchaser has no locus to challenge the acquisition and/or pray for deemed
      lapse of acquisition.
             5. In view of the matter, the impugned judgment and order passed
B     by the High Court is unsustainable and the same deserves to be quashed
      and set aside and is accordingly quashed and set aside. Appeal is
      accordingly allowed. No costs.
             Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.

C     Ankit Gyan                                                     Appeal allowed.
      (Assisted by : Abhishek Agnihotri, LCRA)




D




E




F




G




H