IMPORTANT POINT
Lapse of land acquisition proceeding – Subsequent purchaser is not entitled to claim lapsing of proceedings under Act, 2013.

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. 3357 of 2016 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 Delhi Development Authority (DDA) has preferred the present appeal.

2. We have heard Shri Nitin Mishra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant and Shri Amit Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No. 1.

3. From the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court, and even as per the counter affidavit filed by the Land Acquisition Collector and the DDA, it appears that the possession of the subject land had been taken on 26.11.2012 and was handed over to DDA. However, thereafter, the High Court has declared that the acquisition with respect to the land in question is deemed to have lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013 solely on the ground that the compensation in respect of the entire area of the subject land has not been paid to the original writ petitioner. At this stage, it is required to be noted that as such the original writ petitioner is the subsequent purchaser and the maintainability of the writ petition at his instance was raised before the High Court, however, the High Court has overruled the said petition relying upon the decision in the case of Government (NCT of Delhi) vs. Manav Dharam Trust and Another, (2017) 6 SCC 751.

3.1 So far as locus of the subsequent purchaser to challenge the acquisition proceedings is concerned, it is not res integra now in view of the subsequent decision of this Court in the case of Delhi Development Authority vs. Godfrey Philips (I) Ltd. and Others, Civil Appeal No. 3073 of 2022, which has been subsequently followed in the case of Delhi Administration through Secretary, Land and Building Department and Others vs. Pawan Kumar and Others, Civil Appeal No. 3646 of 2022.

3.2 In the case of Godfrey Philips (I) Ltd. and Others (supra), it is observed and held that the subsequent purchaser is not entitled to claim lapsing of the proceedings under the Act, 2013. In that view of the matter, the original writ petitioner - subsequent purchaser had no locus to file the writ petition to claim lapsing of the acquisition proceedings under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013.

3.3 Even otherwise, on merits also, the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court is unsustainable in view of the Constitution Bench decision of this Court in the case of Indore Development Authority vs. Manoharlal and Others, (2020) 8 SCC 129. In the said decision, it is observed and held that for lapsing of the acquisition under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013, twin conditions, of not taking over the possession and not paying/tendering the compensation, are required to be satisfied. In the said decision, it is further observed and held that if one of the conditions is not satisfied, there shall not be deemed lapse of the acquisition proceedings under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013. In paragraph 366, the Constitution Bench of this Court has observed and held as under:

“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.

366.2. In case the award has been passed within the window period of five years excluding the period covered by an interim order of the