Delhi Development Authority Versus MGS (India) Private Limited & Ors
Delhi Development Authority Versus MGS (India) Private Limited & Ors
Landmark Cases of India / सुप्रीम कोर्ट के ऐतिहासिक फैसले
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 944 OF 2023
(@ SLP (C) No. 18982 of 2022)
Delhi Development Authority …Appellant(s)
Versus
MGS (India) Private Limited & Ors. …Respondent(s)
WITH
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 947 OF 2023
(@ SLP (C) No. 3167 of 2023)
(@ Diary No. 1203 of 2023)
Govt. of NCT of Delhi Through Secretary
Land & Building Department & Anr. …Appellant(s)
Versus
MGS (India) Private Limited & Ors. …Respondent(s)
J U D G M E N T
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
1
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 & Anr. Vs. Union of
India & Ors., (2019) 10 SCC 229; Delhi Development Authority Vs.
Godfrey Phillips (I) Ltd. & Ors., Civil Appeal No. 3073 of 2022 and
2
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 & Anr. (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 Anr., (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
3
Kumar & Anr. (supra) and Godfrey Phillips (I) Ltd. & Ors. (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 & Anr. (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. &
Ors. (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 Anr. (supra) is concerned, it is
required to be noted that the said decision is held to be per incuriam by
this Court in the aforesaid decisions.
5.3 From the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court,
it appears that though before the High Court and so stated in the
counter, an objection was raised on maintainability of the writ petition, at
4
the instance of the original writ petitioner – subsequent purchaser, the
same has not been dealt with by the High Court. The High Court ought
to have dealt with the said aspect. Be that it may, the fact remains that
the respondent being a subsequent purchaser had no locus to pray for
lapsing of the acquisition as observed and held by this Court in the
aforesaid decisions. Therefore, the impugned judgment and order
passed by the High Court is unsustainable.
6. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, both these
appeals succeed. The impugned judgment and order passed by the
High Court is hereby quashed and set aside. There shall not be any
deemed lapse of the acquisition proceedings with respect to the land in
question as observed and held by the High Court.
Present appeals are accordingly allowed. However, in the facts
and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.
Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
………………………………….J.
[M.R. SHAH]
………………………………….J.
[C.T. RAVIKUMAR]
NEW DELHI; ………………………………….J.
FEBRUARY 17, 2023. [SANJAY KAROL]
5
Comments
Post a Comment