Case Note & Summary
The Delhi Development Authority (DDA) appealed against the judgment of the Delhi High Court which allowed a writ petition filed by Narendra Kumar Jain and others, declaring that the acquisition of their land had lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (Act, 2013). The High Court had relied on the decision in Govt. of NCT of Delhi v. Manav Dharma Trust (2017) 6 SCC 751 to overrule the objection that the writ petitioners, being subsequent purchasers, had no locus to challenge the acquisition. The LAC had stated that possession was taken on 12.07.2004 and that the petitioners were not recorded owners but subsequent purchasers. The Supreme Court noted that the decision in Manav Dharma Trust had been held to be not good law in Shiv Kumar & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors. (2019) 10 SCC 229 and Delhi Development Authority v. Godfrey Philips (I) Ltd. & Ors. Civil Appeal No. 3073/2022, which specifically held that a subsequent purchaser has no locus to challenge the acquisition or pray for deemed lapse. Consequently, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, quashed the High Court's order, and dismissed the writ petition.
Headnote
A) Land Acquisition - Locus Standi of Subsequent Purchaser - Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 - The High Court had allowed the writ petition of subsequent purchasers declaring acquisition lapsed under Section 24(2) relying on Manav Dharma Trust. The Supreme Court held that subsequent purchaser has no locus to challenge acquisition or pray for deemed lapse, overruling Manav Dharma Trust in light of Shiv Kumar & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors. (2019) 10 SCC 229 and Delhi Development Authority v. Godfrey Philips (I) Ltd. & Ors. Civil Appeal No. 3073/2022. The impugned judgment was quashed and set aside. (Paras 1-5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether a subsequent purchaser of land has locus standi to challenge the acquisition and seek deemed lapse under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013
Final Decision
Appeal allowed. Impugned judgment and order of the High Court quashed and set aside. No costs. Pending applications disposed of.
Law Points
- Subsequent purchaser has no locus to challenge acquisition under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition
- Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act
- 2013
- Manav Dharma Trust overruled by Shiv Kumar and Godfrey Philips
Case Details
Civil Appeal No. 3340 of 2023 (@ SLP (C) No. 9383 of 2023) (@ Diary No. 28392 of 2021)
M.R. Shah, Ahsanuddin Amanullah
Delhi Development Authority
Narendra Kumar Jain & Ors.
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Civil appeal against High Court judgment allowing writ petition declaring acquisition lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013
Remedy Sought
Appellant (DDA) sought quashing of High Court order allowing writ petition of respondents (subsequent purchasers) declaring acquisition lapsed
Filing Reason
High Court allowed writ petition of subsequent purchasers declaring acquisition lapsed under Section 24(2) of Act, 2013, relying on Manav Dharma Trust
Previous Decisions
High Court of Delhi allowed Writ Petition (C) No. 9745 of 2015 declaring acquisition lapsed under Section 24(2) of Act, 2013
Issues
Whether a subsequent purchaser of land has locus standi to challenge acquisition and seek deemed lapse under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013
Submissions/Arguments
Appellant (DDA) argued that respondents being subsequent purchasers have no locus to challenge acquisition or pray for deemed lapse, relying on Shiv Kumar and Godfrey Philips
Respondents (writ petitioners) relied on Manav Dharma Trust to assert locus as subsequent purchasers
Ratio Decidendi
A subsequent purchaser of land has no locus standi to challenge the acquisition or pray for deemed lapse under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, as held in Shiv Kumar & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors. (2019) 10 SCC 229 and Delhi Development Authority v. Godfrey Philips (I) Ltd. & Ors. Civil Appeal No. 3073/2022, overruling Manav Dharma Trust.
Judgment Excerpts
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.
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.
Procedural History
The respondents filed Writ Petition (C) No. 9745 of 2015 before the High Court of Delhi seeking declaration that acquisition of their land had lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013. The High Court allowed the writ petition on 19.05.2021. The DDA appealed to the Supreme Court by way of SLP (C) No. 9383 of 2023, which was converted into Civil Appeal No. 3340 of 2023. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal on 04.05.2023.
Acts & Sections
- Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013: Section 24(2)
