DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY versus MANPREET SINGH & ORS

DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY versus MANPREET SINGH & ORS

Because the original writ petitioner was a subsequent purchaser who acquired interest after the Act, 2013 came into force, he had no locus to challenge the acquisition or its lapsing; therefore the High Court erred in entertaining and allowing the writ petition and its judgment declaring the acquisition to have lapsed under Section 24(2) is quashed and set aside.

Parties
Appellant: Delhi Development Authority; Appellant: Government of NCT of Delhi; Respondent: Manpreet Singh
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
16 January 2023
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal Against Judgment and Order of the High Court of Delhi Dated 30.01.2018 Allowing a Writ Petition
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Lapsing of Acquisition, Locus of Subsequent Purchasers, Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013
Land Acquisition Property Law Administrative Law Lapsing of Acquisition Locus of Subsequent Purchasers Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Delhi Development Authority

Appellant

Government of NCT of Delhi

Appellant

Manpreet Singh

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal Against Judgment and Order of the High Court of Delhi Dated 30.01.2018 Allowing a Writ Petition

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a subsequent purchaser has locus to challenge acquisition proceedings or the lapsing of acquisition under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013
  2. 2 Whether the acquisition in question is deemed to have lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013

Ratio Decidendi

Because the original writ petitioner was a subsequent purchaser who acquired interest after the Act, 2013 came into force, he had no locus to challenge the acquisition or its lapsing; therefore the High Court erred in entertaining and allowing the writ petition and its judgment declaring the acquisition to have lapsed under Section 24(2) is quashed and set aside.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Impugned judgment and order dated 30.01.2018 of the High Court quashed and set aside
  • Original Writ Petition No.11230 of 2015 dismissed