The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation and application of Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013, regarding the lapse of acquisition proceedings and the rights of subsequent purchasers in such proceedings.

JUDGMENT :

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. 1202 of 2017 by which the High Court has allowed the said writ petition preferred by the original writ petitioner – subsequent purchaser and has declared that the acquisition proceedings initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as “Act, 1894”) with regard to the land in question is deemed to have lapsed under 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 Government of NCT of Delhi and Anr. have preferred the present appeal.

2. From the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court, it appears that it was the specific case on behalf of the appellants and so stated in the counter affidavit before the High Court that the possession of the land in question was taken over on 17.09.2008 and even the name of the Government was mutated in the revenue records. However, thereafter and despite the above, solely relying upon the decision of this Court in the case of Pune Municipal Corporation and Anr. Vs. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki and Ors., (2014) 3 SCC 183 and solely on the ground that the compensation was not paid or tendered in accordance with law, the High Court has declared that the land acquisition proceedings with respect to the land in question has lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013.

2.1 At the outset, it is required to be noted that the original writ petitioner before the High Court was the subsequent purchaser and as observed and held by this Court in the case of Delhi Development Authority Vs. Godfrey Philips (I) Ltd. & Ors., Civil Appeal No. 3073 of 2022, subsequent purchaser is not entitled to claim lapsing of acquisition proceedings under the Act, 2013. Therefore, the High Court has materially erred in entertaining the writ petition by the original writ petitioner – subsequent purchaser claiming lapsing of the acquisition proceedings under the Act, 2013.

2.2 Even otherwise, on merits also, the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court is unsustainable. While passing the impugned judgment and order and declaring that the acquisition proceedings with respect to the land in question has lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013, the High Court has relied upon the decision of this Court in the case of Pune Municipal Corporation and Anr. (supra), which has been specifically overruled by the Constitution Bench of this Court in the case of Indore Development Authority Vs. Manoharlal and Ors., (2020) 8 SCC 129. In paragraphs 365 and 366, the Constitution Bench of this Court has observed and held as under:-

“365. Resultantly, the decision rendered in Pune Municipal Corpn. [Pune Municipal Corpn. v. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki, (2014) 3 SCC 183] is hereby overruled and all other decisions in which Pune Municipal Corpn. [Pune Municipal Corpn. v. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki, (2014) 3 SCC 183] has been followed, are also overruled. The decision in Sree Balaji Nagar Residential Assn. [Sree Balaji Nagar Residential Assn. v. State of T.N., (2015) 3 SCC 353] cannot be said to be laying down good law, is overruled and other decisions following the same are also overruled. In Indore Development Authority v. Shailendra [(2018) 3 SCC 412], the aspect with respect to the proviso to Section 24(2) and whether “or” has to be read as “nor” or as “and” was not placed for consideration. Therefore, that decision too cannot prevail, in the light of the discussion in the present judgment.

366. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we answer the questions as under:

366.1. Under the provisions of Section 24(1)(a) in case the award is not made as on 1-1-2014, the date of commencement of the 2013 Act, there is no lapse of proceedings. Compensation has to be determined under the provisions of the 2013 Act.

366.