Tenetowl LogoTenetowl
High CourtDivision BenchAppeal allowed; High Court judgment quashed and...

Delhi Development Authority v. Narendra Kumar Jain & Ors.

Case / Petition Number:Civil Appeal No.3340 of 2023
Neutral Citation:[2023] 4 S.C.R. 870

Case Details & Bench

Court
High Court
Hon'ble Judges
  • M. R. Shah
  • Ahsanuddin Amanullah
Judgment Date
2023-05-04
Court Decision / Holding
Appeal allowed. The impugned High Court judgment declaring deemed lapse under Section 24(2) is quashed and set aside; No costs; Pending applications disposed of.
Final Disposition
Appeal allowed; High Court judgment quashed and set aside; No costs; Pending applications disposed of.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

  • Delhi Development Authority

Respondents

  • Narendra Kumar Jain
  • Others

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

  • • Manika Tripathy
  • • Ashutosh Kaushik
  • • Manish Vashist

Counsels for Respondents

  • • Sujeeta Srivastava

Case Synopsis & Summary

This Supreme Court appeal challenges a Delhi High Court writ petition outcome where the court declared that the acquisition of land is deemed to have lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, on the ground that compensation had not been paid or tendered. The High Court had relied on the decision in Govt. of NCT of Delhi v. Manav Dharma Trust to hold that the writ petitioners, though not the recorded owners, as subsequent purchasers had locus to challenge the acquisition and seek deemed lapse. The Delhi Development Authority contends that the High Court erred in granting locus to a non-recorded purchaser and that the locus doctrine is constrained by established precedent. The Court reiterates that the subsequent purchaser cannot challenge the acquisition or seek deemed lapse, citing Shiv Kumar & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors. and Delhi Development Authority v. Godfrey Philips (I) Ltd. & Ors., and overrules Manav Dharma Trust as not good law. On this basis, it holds that the High Court’s decision is unsustainable, quashes the impugned order, and allows the appeal. The decision clarifies that section 24(2) relief is not available to parties without direct, recorded ownership or possession rights in the land.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

  • Locus standi of subsequent purchasers to challenge acquisition
  • Deemed lapse under Section 24(2) cannot be invoked by a person with no direct interest
  • Manav Dharma Trust not good law; overruled by Shiv Kumar / Godfrey Philips decisions

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The appellant contends that the High Court erred in recognizing a writ petition by a subsequent purchaser and in declaring the acquisition to have lapsed under Section 24(2) merely because compensation had not been paid; It argues lack of locus for subsequent purchasers and reliance on Manav Dharma Trust is misplaced since Shiv Kumar and Godfrey Philips affirm that a downstream purchaser has no locus to challenge the acquisition or seek lapse; the appeal seeks reversal of the High Court’s order and dismissal of the petition.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents contend that they, though not recorded owners, had a live interest and locus to challenge the acquisition and seek relief under Section 24(2); the High Court’s order rightly allowed the writ petition to ensure that lapse under 24(2) is addressed, given possession and non-payment of compensation; they rely on Manav Dharma Trust as previously held.

Cited Precedents (3)

Case NameCitationTreatmentExplanation
Govt. of NCT of Delhi v. Manav Dharma Trust(2017) 6 SCC 751OverruledManav Dharma Trust decision held to allow locus for subsequent purchasers; overruled in light of Shiv Kumar and Godfrey Philips.
Shiv Kumar & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors.(2019) 10 SCC 229PositiveExplicitly holds that a subsequent purchaser has no locus to challenge acquisition or seek deemed lapse; relied upon by this Court.
Delhi Development Authority v. Godfrey Philips (I) Ltd. & Ors.Civil Appeal No. 3073/2022PositiveSupports the principle that a subsequent purchaser lacks locus to challenge the acquisition or seek deemed lapse; relied upon in the present decision.

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

Does this judgment govern your specific facts?

Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against Delhi Development Authority v. Narendra Kumar Jain & Ors. and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

870 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2023] 4 S.C.R. 870 [2023] 4 S.C.R. A ## DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY v. ## NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN & ORS. (Civil Appeal No.3340 of 2023) B MAY 04, 2023 ## **[M. R. SHAH AND AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH, JJ.]** - _Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land_ - _Acquisition, rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 – s.24(2) – High Court declared that the land in question deemed to have lapsed_ - C _u/s. 24(2) of the 2013 Act – It was the case on behalf of the LAC that possession of the land was taken over and the original writ petitioners are not the recorded owners, they were subsequent purchasers – However, High Court allowed the writ petition relying on the case of_ Govt. of NCT of Delhi v. Manav Dharma Trust _– On_ - D _appeal, held: The decision in the case of_ Manav Dharma Trust _was held to be not a good law in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in_ Shiv Kumar & Anr. V. Union of India & Ors. _and_ Delhi Development Authority v. Godfrey Philips (I) Ltd. & Ors. _– In both the said cases, it was specifically held that the subsequent purchaser has no_ locus _to challenge the acquisition and/or pay for deemed_ - E _lapse of acquisition – Impugned Judgment and order of the High Court unsustainable._ - _Govt. of NCT of Delhi v. Manav Dharma Trust_ **(2017) 6 SCC 751 : [2017] 4 SCR 232 – referred to.** - F _Shiv Kumar & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors._ **(2019) 10 SCC 229;** _Delhi Development Authority v. Godfrey Philips (I) Ltd. & Ors._ **Civil Appeal No. 3073/2022 – relied on.** ## **Case Law Reference** - G **[2017] 4 SCR 232 referred to Para 2** CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.3340 of 2023. From the Judgment and Order dated 20.07.2018 of the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in WP (C) No.9745 of 2015. H 870 ## DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY v. NARENDRA KUMAR 871 JAIN Ms. Manika Tripathy, Ashutosh Kaushik, Manish Vashist, Advs. A for the Appellant. Ms. Sujeeta Srivastava, Adv. for the Respondents. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by ## **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. 9745 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 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 Delhi Development Authority has preferred the present appeal. 2. From the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court it appears that and even from the counter filed on behalf of the LAC before the High Court, it was the case on behalf of the LAC that possession of the land in question was taken over on 12.07.2004. It was also the case on behalf of the LAC that original writ petitioners – respondents herein are not recorded owners and they are the subsequent purchaser. However, thereafter, relying upon the decision of this Court in the case of **Govt. of NCT of Delhi Vs. Manav Dharma Trust (2017) 6 SCC 751,** the High Court has overruled the objection that the writ petitioners being subsequent purchaser has no locus to challenge the acquisition and/or to pray for deemed lapse of acquisition, thereafter, on the ground that the compensation has not been paid/tendered, the High Court has allowed the writ petition. 3. However, it is required to be noted that the decision of this Court in the case of **Manav Dharma Trust (supra)** which has been relied upon by the High Court while passing the impugned judgment and order, is held to be not a good law 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.** B C D E F G H 872 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2023] 4 S.C.R. - A 4. In the case of **Shiv Kumar (supra)** and **Godfrey Philips (I) Ltd. (supra)** , it is specifically observed and held that the subsequent purchaser has no locus to challenge the acquisition and/or pray for deemed lapse of acquisition. 5. In view of the matter, the impugned judgment and order passed B by the High Court is unsustainable and the same deserves to be quashed and set aside and is accordingly quashed and set aside. Appeal is accordingly allowed. No costs. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. - C Ankit Gyan (Assisted by : Abhishek Agnihotri, LCRA) Appeal allowed. D E F G H