Full Judgment Text
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3340 OF 2023
(@ SLP (C) NO. 9383 OF 2023)
(@ DIARY NO. 28392 OF 2021)
Delhi Development Authority …Appellant(s)
Versus
Narendra Kumar Jain & Ors. …Respondent(s)
J U D G M E N T
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 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
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by R
Natarajan
Date: 2023.05.04
16:38:35 IST
Reason:
Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in
Page 1 of 4
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 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 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
Page 2 of 4
and/or to pray for deemed lapse of acquisition,
thereafter, on the ground that the compensation has
not been paid/tendered, the 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 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.
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
Page 3 of 4
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 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.
………………………………….J.
[M.R. SHAH]
NEW DELHI; ………………………………….J.
MAY 4, 2023. [AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH]
Page 4 of 4