1. Challenge to the deemed lapsing of land acquisition proceedings under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. (Para 1 )
Back
Next 
2023 Supreme(SC) 130
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
M.R. SHAH, C.T. RAVIKUMAR, SANJAY KAROL, JJ.
Delhi Development Authority – Appellant
Versus
MGS (India) Private Limited and Others – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 944 of 2023, SLP (C) No. 18982 of 2022
WITH
Govt. of NCT of Delhi through Secretary Land and Building Department – Appellant
Versus
MGS (India) Private Limited and Others – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 947 of 2023, SLP (C) No. 3167 of 2023, Diary No. 1203 of 2023
Decided On : 17-02-2023
Important Points
A subsequent purchaser has no standing to challenge lapsing of acquisition proceedings under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Act, 2013.
Subject
Property Law - Land Acquisition
Act Referred
Headnote
Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition - Locus Standi - Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013
Fact of the Case:
The High Court declared that the acquisition of land had lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Act 2013. The subsequent purchaser challenged this decision.Finding of the Court:
The Supreme Court held that a subsequent purchaser has no locus standi to challenge the lapsing of the acquisition proceedings, citing precedents such as Shiv Kumar and Another vs. Union of India and Others.Issues:
Whether a subsequent purchaser has standing to challenge lapsing of acquisition proceedings.Ratio Decidendi:
The court established that a subsequent purchaser lacks standing to challenge the lapsing of acquisition proceedings based on previous decisions and held that the High Court's judgment was unsustainable.Final Decision:
The appeals were allowed, quashing the High Court's judgment and setting aside the deemed lapse of the acquisition proceedings for the land in question.Legal Category Hierarchy
Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant(s) : Ms. Sujeeta Srivastava, AOR Mr. Nitin Mishra, AOR Mr. Ishaan Sharma, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): M/s. Vedya Partners Aor, AOR Mr. Bharat Arora, Adv. Mr. Abhishek Singh, Adv. Mr. Gourav Arora, Adv. Mr. Manikya Khanna, Adv. Mrs. Nidhi Mohan Parashar, Adv. Mr. Aditya Krishna, Adv. Ms. Sujeeta Srivastava, AOR
For the Appellant(s) : Ms. Sujeeta Srivastava, AOR Mr. Nitin Mishra, AOR Mr. Ishaan Sharma, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): M/s. Vedya Partners Aor, AOR Mr. Bharat Arora, Adv. Mr. Abhishek Singh, Adv. Mr. Gourav Arora, Adv. Mr. Manikya Khanna, Adv. Mrs. Nidhi Mohan Parashar, Adv. Mr. Aditya Krishna, Adv. Ms. Sujeeta Srivastava, AOR
Table of Contents
2. Whether a subsequent purchaser of land, after the declaration of the award, has locus standi to challenge the acquisition or pray for its lapsing. (Para 2 , 3 )
3. The High Court failed to address the maintainability of the petition; a subsequent purchaser lacks locus standi regardless of whether title is acquired via registered sale deed. (Para 5 )
4. A subsequent purchaser of land after the commencement of acquisition proceedings and declaration of award has no locus standi to challenge the lapsing of the acquisition. (Para 5 )
5. Appeals allowed; High Court judgment quashed; no deemed lapse of acquisition proceedings. (Para 6 , 7 )
6. Does a subsequent purchaser of land have the locus standi to challenge the lapsing of land acquisition proceedings?
No, a subsequent purchaser who acquires the land after the acquisition proceedings have commenced and the award has been declared has no locus standi to challenge the lapsing of the acquisition. (Para 5 )
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 dated 20.07.2015 in Writ Petition (C) No. 910 of 2015 by which the High Court has allowed the said writ petition and has declared that the acquisition with respect to the land in question is deemed to have lapsed by virtue of 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) as well as Government of NCT of Delhi have preferred the present appeals.
2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants has vehemently submitted that the original writ petitioner before the High Court was the subsequent purchaser, who admittedly purchased the property - land in question after the acquisition proceedings commenced and the award was declared. It is submitted that therefore, the original writ petitioner being a subsequent purchaser had no locus to challenge the acquisition proceedings and/or lapsing of the acquisition proceedings. It is submitted that the aforesaid objection was taken before the High Court and even it was specifically mentioned in the counter before the High Court, however, the Hon’ble High Court has not decided the locus of the original writ petitioner to pray for lapsing of the acquisition being a subsequent purchaser. Reliance is placed on the decisions of this Court in the case of Shiv Kumar and Another vs. Union of India and Others , (2019) 10 SCC 229 and Delhi Development Authority vs. Godfrey Phillips (I) Ltd. and Others, Civil Appeal No. 3073 of 2022 and the subsequent decision in which the aforesaid two decisions have been relied upon.
3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-original writ petitioner though is not disputing that the original writ petitioner was the subsequent purchaser and purchased the land subsequent to the acquisition proceedings. However, he has submitted that the decision of this Court in the case of Shiv Kumar and Another (supra) shall not be applicable inasmuch as in that case, the original writ petitioner had no title and he claimed the title on the basis of the general power of attorney. It is submitted that at the relevant time, the decision of this Court in the case of Government (NCT of Delhi) vs. Manav Dharam Trust and Another, (2017) 6 SCC 751 was on the point, which came to be relied upon by the High Court.
4. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties.
5. It is not in dispute that the original writ petitioner is the subsequent purchaser, who purchased the land in question subsequent to the acquisition proceedings and even after the award was declared. Therefore, being a subsequent purchaser, as observed and held by this Court in catena of decisions, more particularly, in the case of Shiv Kumar and Another (supra) and Godfrey Phillips (I) Ltd. and Others (supra) and other subsequent decisions, subsequent purchaser has no locus to challenge the lapsing of the acquisition.
5.1 The submission on behalf of the respondent that the decision of this Court in the case of Shiv Kumar and Another (supra) shall not be applicable as in that case, the original writ petitioner claimed the title on the basis of a general power of attorney and in the present case, the subsequent purchaser purchased the property by registered sale deed is concerned, it is required to be noted that the law laid down by this Court in the aforesaid decision is that a subsequent purchaser has no locus to challenge the acquisition. In the case of Godfrey Phillips (I) Ltd. and Others (supra), it is specifically observed and held that the subsequent purchaser has no locus to pray for lapsing of the acquisition.
5.2 Now, so far as the reliance placed upon the decision of this Court in the case of Manav Dharam Trust and Another (supra) is concerned, it is required to be noted that the
