High CourtDivision Bench2023-03-24Appeal Allowed; High Court’s judgment quashed a...

Government of NCT of Delhi v. Vijay Gupta & Ors.

Case / Petition Number:Civil Appeal No. 1784 of 2023

Neutral Citation:[2023] 3 S.C.R. 673

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court
Hon'ble Judges: M. R. Shah
C. T. Ravikumar
Judgment Date: 2023-03-24
Court Decision / Holding: The impugned judgment of the Delhi High Court is quashed and set aside. The Supreme Court holds that there shall be no deemed lapse of the acquisition proceedings with respect to the land in question. The Civil Appeal is allowed; no order as to costs. Pending applications, if any, are disposed of.
Final Disposition: Appeal Allowed; High Court’s judgment quashed and set aside; there shall be no deemed lapse; no costs; pending applications disposed of.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Government of NCT of Delhi

Respondents

Vijay Gupta
Others

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• A. Chandra Prakash
• CP Rajwar
• Vivek Singh
• Ms. Somi Sharma
• Divya Pandey (Assisted by Abhishek Pratap Singh, LCRA)

Counsels for Respondents

• Prithvi Pal
• Randhir Pandey
• Naresh Nagar
• Nitin Mishra
• Ishaan Sharma

Case Synopsis & Summary

This appeal concerns the validity of the land acquisition by the Government of the National Capital Territory of Delhi under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, and the operation of Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. The Delhi High Court, in WP(C) No. 9196 of 2015, had held that the acquisition with respect to the land was deemed to have lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act. The Government of NCT of Delhi has challenged that order, contending that the petitioners before the High Court were subsequent purchasers who had no locus to challenge the acquisition or its lapsing, and that the cited authorities (Shiv Kumar, Godfrey Phillips, Pawan Kumar) support the proposition that a subsequent purchaser cannot challenge the acquisition. The respondents admit they purchased after the acquisition but argue that they obtained some interest through power of attorney, will or receipts; they insist that such persons can challenge. The Supreme Court, relying on the chain of authority including Shiv Kumar and subsequent decisions (Godfrey Phillips and Pawan Kumar), holds that a subsequent purchaser does not have locus to challenge the acquisition or lapsing. It quashes the High Court’s order and declares that there shall be no deemed lapse of the acquisition in this case, thereby allowing the appeal and clarifying the locus principle to curb protracted litigation by non-title holders.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013Land Acquisition Act, 1894

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The appellant contends that the writ petitioners before the Delhi High Court were subsequent purchasers who had no locus to challenge the acquisition or its lapsing. Relying on the authoritative line of decisions starting with Shiv Kumar & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors. (2019) 10 SCC 229 and followed by Delhi Development Authority v. Godfrey Phillips (I) Ltd. & Ors. (2022) 8 SCC 771 and Delhi Administration Thr. Secretary, L&B Department & Ors. v. Pawan Kumar & Ors. (2022) 7 SCC 470, the appellant argues that a subsequent purchaser cannot challenge the legality or the lapse of acquisition. The High Court’s reliance on Manav Dharam Trust (2017) 6 SCC 751 is not determinative; the core position is that locus to challenge lapsing does not lie for subsequent purchasers. The appeal seeks to set aside the High Court’s deemed lapse declaration and maintain that there is no deemed lapse in this case.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents acknowledge they purchased after the acquisition but submit their interests originated through various instruments (general power of attorney, will, receipts) and thus contend their ability to challenge should be considered. They emphasize the writ petitioners’ reliance on the 2017 Manav Dharam Trust decision and assert that subsequent purchasers can pursue relief where entitlements are established by title or recognized instruments. They maintain that the High Court correctly entertained the petition and that lapsing decisions must be scrutinized on facts and title documents.

Cited Precedents (4)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Shiv Kumar & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors.	(2019) 10 SCC 229; 2019 (13) SCALE 698	Positive	Cited as the leading authority establishing that a subsequent purchaser has no locus to challenge the acquisition/lapsing; the Court explicitly follows this precedent.
Delhi Development Authority v. Godfrey Phillips (I) Ltd. & Ors.	(2022) 8 SCC 771	Positive	Cited as follow-on authority reinforcing the proposition that subsequent purchasers lack locus to challenge lapsing, and is used to support the present decision.
Delhi Administration Thr. Secretary, Land and Building Department & Ors. v. Pawan Kumar & Ors.	(2022) 7 SCC 470	Positive	Cited as part of the line of cases following Shiv Kumar supporting the locus principle against subsequent purchasers.
Government (NCT of Delhi) v. Manav Dharam Trust and Anr.	(2017) 6 SCC 751; [2017] 4 SCR 232	Mentioned Only	Listed under case law references as referred to; not treated as controlling authority for 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 Government of NCT of Delhi v. Vijay Gupta & Ors. and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

673 [2023] 3 S.C.R. 673 GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI A v. VIJAY GUPTA & ORS. (Civil Appeal No. 1784 of 2023) MARCH 24, 2023 B ## **[M. R. SHAH AND C. T. RAVIKUMAR, JJ.]** _Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 – s.24(2) – High Court allowing the writ petition filed by respondents-subsequent_ C _purchasers declared that the acquisition w.r.t the land in question is deemed to have lapsed by virtue of s.24(2) – Objection as to the locus of the subsequent purchasers to challenge the acquisition/ lapsing of the acquisition – Held: A subsequent purchaser has no locus to challenge the acquisition/lapsing of the acquisition – High Court erred in entertaining the writ petition preferred by the_ D _respondents praying for lapsing of the acquisition – There shall not be any deemed lapse of the acquisition proceedings w.r.t the land in question – Impugned judgment is quashed and set aside._ _Shiv Kumar & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors._ **(2019) 10 SCC 229 : 2019 (13) SCALE 698;** _Delhi Development Authority v. Godfrey Phillips (I) Ltd. & Ors._ **(2022) 8 SCC 771;** _Delhi Administration Thr. Secretary, Land and Building Department & Ors. v. Pawan Kumar & Ors._ **(2022) 7 SCC 470 – relied on.** _Government (NCT of Delhi) v. Manav Dharam Trust and Anr._ **(2017) 6 SCC 751 : [2017] 4 SCR 232 – referred to.** E F ## **Case Law Reference** **[2017] 4 SCR 232 referred to Para 2** G CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1784 of 2023. From the Judgment and Order dated 06.08.2018 of the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in WP (C) No. 9196 of 2015. H 673 674 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2023] 3 S.C.R. A Chandra Prakash, CP Rajwar, Vivek Singh, Ms. Somi Sharma, Advs. for the Appellant. Prithvi Pal, Randhir Pandey, Naresh Nagar, Nitin Mishra, Ishaan Sharma, Advs. for the Respondents. B 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 dated 06.08.2018 in Writ Petition (C) No. 9196 of 2015 by which the High C Court has allowed the said writ petition preferred by the contesting respondents herein 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 Government of NCT of Delhi has preferred the present D appeal. 2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has vehemently submitted that it was the specific case on behalf of the appellant before the High Court that as the original writ petitioners before the High Court were the subsequent purchasers, they have no locus to E challenge the acquisition / lapsing of acquisition. It is submitted that, however, despite the above objection, the High Court has entertained the writ petition at the instance of the subsequent purchasers 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 Act, 2013, relying upon the decision of this Court in the case of **Government (NCT of Delhi)** F **Vs. Manav Dharam Trust and Anr., (2017) 6 SCC 751.** It is submitted that in view of the decision of this Court in the case of **Shiv Kumar & Anr. Vs. Union of India & Ors., (2019) 10 SCC 229** , the decision in the case of **Manav Dharam Trust and Anr. (supra)** is not a good law. It is submitted that as observed and held by this Court in the G case of **Shiv Kumar & Anr. (supra)** followed by this Court in the subsequent decisions in the case of **Delhi Development Authority Vs. Godfrey Phillips (I) Ltd. & Ors., (2022) 8 SCC 771** and **Delhi Administration Thr. Secretary, Land and Building Department & Ors. Vs. Pawan Kumar & Ors., (2022) 7 SCC 470,** a subsequent H GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI v. VIJAY GUPTA & ORS. 675 [M. R. SHAH, J.] purchaser has no locus to challenge the acquisition and / or lapsing of A the acquisition. Making above submissions and relying upon the above decisions, it is prayed to allow the present appeal. 3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the contesting respondents – original writ petitioners is not in a position to dispute that they had purchased the land in question subsequent to the acquisition proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Even, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the original writ petitioners is not in a position to point out any valid title deed. From the averments in the petition before the High Court, it appears that the original writ petitioners claimed the relief based on general power of attorney, will, receipt etc., which as such cannot confer any title on the original writ petitioners. 4. Be that it may, the fact remains that the respondents can be said to be subsequent purchasers. As per the law laid down by this Court in the case of **Shiv Kumar & Anr. (supra)** , which has been subsequently followed by this Court in the case of **Godfrey Phillips (I) Ltd. & Ors. (supra)** and **Pawan Kumar & Ors. (supra)** and even in other decisions, a subsequent purchaser has no locus to challenge the acquisition / lapsing of the acquisition. In that view of the matter, the High Court has materially erred in entertaining the writ petition preferred by the original writ petitioners praying for lapsing of the acquisition. On the aforesaid ground alone, the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court deserves to be quashed and set aside. 5. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, the present appeal succeeds. 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 by the impugned judgment and order. Present appeal is accordingly allowed. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. B C D E F G Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. H Divya Pandey (Assisted by : Abhishek Pratap Singh, LCRA) Appeal allowed.