DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY versus MANPREET SINGH & ORS (16/01/2023) — Supreme Court headnote

AI-generated headnote. Verify against the judgment before relying on it. Paragraph numbers refer to the judgment.

Summary

Land was notified for acquisition in 1980, and the award was declared in 1987. The writ petitioner claimed the land under an assignment deed of 2015 and acquired his interest only after the 2013 Act came into force. The Delhi High Court declared the acquisition lapsed under Section 24(2) at his instance. The Supreme Court allowed the appeals by the DDA and the Government of NCT of Delhi. Shiv Kumar, a three-judge Bench decision that rejected Manav Dharam Trust and was followed in Godfrey Phillips and Pawan Kumar, settles that a subsequent purchaser has no locus to challenge an acquisition or claim its lapse. A request to reconsider Shiv Kumar was not acted on, and the writ petition was dismissed on that ground alone.

Issues

Whether a person who acquired title to acquired land after the 2013 Act came into force has locus to seek a declaration that the acquisition has lapsed under Section 24(2).

Provisions considered

Section 24(2), Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013Following the three-judge Bench in Shiv Kumar v. Union of India (2019) 10 SCC 229, a subsequent purchaser has no locus to challenge an acquisition or its lapse under the provision. (¶¶ 6, 6.1, 6.2)

Held

The question is not res integra: Shiv Kumar, which held Government (NCT of Delhi) v. Manav Dharam Trust not to be good law and was followed in Godfrey Phillips and Pawan Kumar, holds that a subsequent purchaser cannot challenge the acquisition or claim lapse. (¶¶ 4, 6.1)
The writ petitioner, who admittedly acquired his interest after the 2013 Act came into force and was not the recorded owner at the time of the 1987 award, lacked locus; the High Court seriously erred in entertaining his petition and declaring lapse, and its judgment is set aside on that ground alone. (¶¶ 4, 6, 6.2)

Result

Civil Appeal Nos. 277 and 278 of 2023 allowed; the Delhi High Court judgment dated 30.01.2018 in W.P. (C) No. 11230 of 2015 quashed and set aside and the writ petition dismissed; no costs.