DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY versus NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN & ORS.

DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY versus NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN & ORS.

The High Court's judgment was quashed because, as held by this Court in Shiv Kumar and followed in Godfrey Philips, a subsequent purchaser lacks locus to challenge the acquisition or to seek deemed lapse; therefore the impugned decision allowing the writ petition was unsustainable and the appeal is allowed.

Parties
Appellant: Delhi Development Authority; Respondent: Narendra Kumar Jain & Ors.
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
04 May 2023
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal No.3340 of 2023 / Judgment on Appeal Before the Supreme Court
Outcome
Appeal allowed; impugned judgment and order quashed and set aside; no costs; pending applications disposed of.
Legal Topics
Deemed Lapse Under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, Locus of Subsequent Purchaser to Challenge Acquisition, Possession and Tender/payment of Compensation
Land Acquisition Property Law Administrative Law Deemed Lapse Under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 Locus of Subsequent Purchaser to Challenge Acquisition Possession and Tender/payment of Compensation

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 2 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Delhi Development Authority

Appellant

Narendra Kumar Jain & Ors.

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal No.3340 of 2023 / Judgment on Appeal Before the Supreme Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a subsequent purchaser has locus to challenge an acquisition and/or to pray for deemed lapse under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013
  2. 2 Whether the High Court was correct in relying upon Govt. of NCT of Delhi v. Manav Dharma Trust to allow the writ petition despite the petitioners being subsequent purchasers

Ratio Decidendi

The High Court's judgment was quashed because, as held by this Court in Shiv Kumar and followed in Godfrey Philips, a subsequent purchaser lacks locus to challenge the acquisition or to seek deemed lapse; therefore the impugned decision allowing the writ petition was unsustainable and the appeal is allowed.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; impugned judgment and order quashed and set aside; no costs; pending applications disposed of.

Orders

  • Impugned judgment and order dated 20.07.2018 of the High Court of Delhi in WP(C) No.9745 of 2015 quashed and set aside
  • Appeal allowed