Summary
The Court set aside a declaration of deemed lapse of land acquisition because the writ petitioners were subsequent purchasers without standing to challenge the acquisition or seek lapse. The High Court’s reliance on Manav Dharma Trust could not survive Shiv Kumar and Godfrey Philips. DDA’s appeal was allowed without costs.
Issues
- Whether subsequent purchasers had standing to seek deemed lapse of acquisition.
Held
- The High Court had rejected the standing objection by relying on Manav Dharma Trust and then declared lapse for non-payment or non-tender of compensation. That approach was unsustainable after the decisions in Shiv Kumar and Godfrey Philips, under which subsequent purchasers lacked standing to challenge acquisition or claim deemed lapse. (¶¶ 2, 3, 4)
- DDA’s appeal was allowed and the High Court’s judgment set aside, without costs. The disposal rested on standing; the Court did not independently adjudicate disputed possession or compensation facts as an alternative merits ground. Pending applications stood disposed of. (¶¶ 2, 3, 4, 5)
Result
DDA’s appeal allowed without costs; High Court’s deemed-lapse declaration set aside for lack of standing of the subsequent purchasers. Pending applications disposed of.