A subsequent purchaser cannot challenge land acquisition if possession has been taken over before their purchase.

JUDGMENT :

M.R. SHAH, J.

1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order dated 01.11.2018 passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 3986 of 2018 by which the High Court has allowed the said writ petition preferred by the respondent no. 1 herein-original writ petitioner 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 Delhi Development Authority has preferred the present appeal.

2. At the outset, it is required to be noted that vide Notification dated 17.06.2005 issued under the provisions of Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 large tract of the land measuring about 200 Bighas falling in Village Mundaka was sought to be acquired. A declaration under Section 6 of the Act was issued and published thereafter on 31.05.2006. In the present case the dispute is with respect to the land measuring 1 Bigha and 2 Biswas out of Khasra No. 65/22/1. That, vide sale deed dated 17.06.2005, the said land was purchased by one Ashok Kumar and Raj Kumar Sharma. Thereafter, vide order dated 01.08.2005, the aforesaid persons came to be mutated in the revenue records. That thereafter vide GPA, Will, Affidavit, Agreement to sell and Receipt dated 11.05.2010 the aforesaid Raj Kumar Sharma sold 275 sq. yrds. land, out of 11 Biswas owned by him, to respondent no. 1 herein-original writ petitioner. Thus, the respondent no. 1-original writ petitioner can be said to be subsequent purchaser who acquired the right, title or interest in the land in question much after the land acquisition proceedings and the award was declared, which was declared on 31.05.2007.

2.1 The respondent no. 1 herein-original writ petitioner filed the writ petition before the High Court to declare that the acquisition with respect to the land in question is deemed to have lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013 on the ground that the compensation with respect to the land in question is not paid.

2.2 Though it was specifically the case on behalf of the appellant before the High Court so stated in the counter affidavit that the possession of the land in question was taken over on 15.12.2007 by drawing the panchnama and that the original writ petitioner being subsequent purchaser had no locus to challenge the acquisition, by the impugned judgment and order the High Court has entertained the writ petition preferred by respondent no. 1-original writ petitioner 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.

2.3. As held by this Court in the case of Shiv Kumar and Another vs. Union of India and Others, (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 and Others, Civil Appeal No. 3646 of 2022 and Delhi Development Authority vs. Godfrey Phillips (I) Ltd. and Others, Civil Appeal No. 3073 of 2022, the subsequent purchaser had no locus to challenge the acquisition and/or lapsing of the acquisition under the Act, 2013. Under the circumstances the High Court has seriously erred in entertaining the writ petition preferred by the respondent no. 1-original writ petitioner-subsequent purchaser who had acquired the right, title or interest in the land in question subsequent to the acquisition proceedings, subsequent to passing of the award. Under the circumstances the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court is unsustainable.

2.4 Even otherwise on merits also and in light of the subsequent decision of the Constitution Bench of this Court in the case of Indore Development Authority vs. Manoharlal and Others, (2020) 8 SCC 129 the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court declaring the acquis