IMPORTANT POINT
Lapse of land acquisition proceeding – If acquiring body/beneficiary was not able to take possession due to pending litigation in a proceeding initiated by land owner, thereafter land owner cannot be permitted to take benefit/advantage of same and thereafter to contend that as possession is not taken over (may be due to pending litigation) still they are entitled to benefit of lapse – Period during stay is to be excluded.

JUDGMENT :

M.R. SHAH, J.

1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order dated 17.07.2017 passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in Writ Petition (Civil) No.2989 of 2016 by which the High Court has allowed the said writ petition preferred by the private respondents herein – original writ petitioners and has declared that the acquisition with respect 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 ‘the Act 2013’), the Government of NCT of Delhi has preferred the present appeal.

2. Having gone through the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court and para 5, it appears that the original writ petitioners being the subsequent purchasers of the land in question they do not derive any right or title to the land at the time of Award and thereafter cannot challenge the acquisition proceedings. Therefore, it was the specific case that the original petitioners had no locus to file the writ petition and seek any relief with respect to the acquisition. From the counter filed before the High Court it appears that it was also the case on behalf of the appellant and so stated in the counter affidavit that the possession of the land in question could not be taken over due to the pending litigation which ended upto this Court upholding the acquisition proceedings. However, thereafter and despite the above and without even considering the locus of the original writ petitioners to challenge the acquisition/lapsing of the acquisition, solely relying upon the fact that the possession has not been taken over and the compensation is not paid and 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, the High Court has allowed the 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 Act, 2013.

2.1 Now so far as the locus of the original writ petitioners being subsequent purchasers is concerned, the said issue is now not res integra in view of the decision of the three Judge Bench of this Court is the case of Shiv Kumar & Anr. Vs. Union of India & Ors. (2019) 10 SCC 229 which has been subsequently followed by this Court in the case of Delhi Administration Through Secretary, Land and Building vs. Pawan Kumar & Ors., Civil Appeal No.3646 of 2022 and Delhi Development Authority versus Godfrey Phillips (I) Ltd. & Ors, Civil Appeal No.3073 of 2022. In the aforesaid decisions this Court has specifically observed and held that the subsequent purchaser has no locus to challenge the acquisition and/or lapsing of the acquisition. In that view of the matter the High Court has materially erred in entertaining the writ petition preferred by the writ petitioners subsequent purchasers and declaring that the acquisition with respect to the land in question is deemed to have lapsed.

2.2 Even otherwise on merits also the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court is unsustainable.

Before the High Court it was the specific case on behalf of the appellant that the possession could not be taken over due to the pending litigation initiated by the original land owners challenging the acquisition which ended upto this Court. As observed and held by this Court in the case of Indore Development Authority versus Manoharlal and others reported in (2020) 8 SCC 129 the period during the stay is to be excluded. If the acquiring body/beneficiary was not able to take the possession due to pending litigation in a proceeding initiated by the land owner, thereafter the land owner cannot be permitted to take the benefit/advantage of the same and thereafter to contend that as the possession is not taken over (may be due to the pending litigation) still they are entitled to benefit of lapse.

2.3 Even