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. 6158 of 2016, by which, the High Court has allowed the said writ petition and has declared that the acquisition proceedings with respect to Khasra No. 668/1 min (012) and 668/2 (01-08) total admeasuring 2 bighas situated at the Revenue Estate of Village Satbari, New Delhi, are 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 & Anr. have preferred the present appeal.

2. Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respective parties at length and perused the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court. From the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court, it appears that 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, 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 by observing that neither the possession of the land in question has been taken nor the compensation has been tendered/paid as per the law laid down by this Court in the case of Pune Municipal Corporation (supra).

3. However, it is required to be noted that before the High Court, it was the specific case on behalf of the appellant(s) that original writ petitioner being the subsequent purchaser had no locus to challenge the acquisition/deemed lapse of acquisition. Even from the averments made in original writ petition, the original writ petitioner claimed the ownership on the basis of the agreement to sell, assignment deed, receipt and possession letter, electricity bill and property tax bill (para 2), the word “sale deed” is inserted by ink. However, no sale deed is forthcoming, thus, the original writ petitioner claimed the ownership and in possession of the agreement to sell, assignment deed, be that as it may, original writ petitioner or the subsequent purchaser. Though, it was the specific case on behalf of the appellant(s) that the original writ petitioner or the subsequent purchaser has no locus to challenge the acquisition/deemed lapse acquisition but the High Court has not dealt with the same. Whether the subsequent purchaser has no locus to challenge the acquisition/deemed lapse acquisition is not res integra in view of the decision of this Court in the case of Shiv Kumar & Anr. Vs. Union of India & Ors. (2019) 10 SCC 229 and subsequent decision of this Court in the case of Delhi Development Authority Vs. Godfrey Philips (I) Ltd. & Ors. Civil Appeal No. 3073/2022.

4. In the case of Godfrey Philips (I) Ltd. (supra) after considering the other decisions on the locus of the subsequent purchaser to claim lapse of acquisition proceedings, i.e., Shiv Kumar (supra), Meera Sahni Vs. Lieutenant Governor of Delhi & Ors., (2008) 9 SCC 173 and M. Venkatesh & Ors. Vs. Commissioner, Bangalore Development Authority (2015) 17 SCC 1, it is specifically observed and held that the subsequent purchaser has no locus to claim lapse of acquisition proceedings. The decision of this Court in the case of Shiv Kumar (supra) has been subsequently followed by this Court in catena of decisions.

5. In view of the above, the High Court has seriously erred in declaring that the acquisition in respect of the land in question is deemed to have lapsed in writ petition filed by the original writ petitioner – subsequent purchaser.

6. Even otherwise, it is required to be noted that in the present case, the possession of the land in question could not be taken by the authority due to pending litigation/stay. The decision of this Court in the case of Pune Municipal Corporation (supra) has been overru