-Report by Pragati Prajeeta

In the case of Delhi Development Authority Vs Manpreet Singh with Govt. of NCT of Delhi Through Secretary Land & Building Department vs Manpreet Singh, a common question of law and facts arose in appeals out of the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court, and hence both the appeals are being decided and disposed of together in a common judgment and order by the Supreme Court of India. And the main question, in this case, was Whether a subsequent purchaser has the locus to challenge the acquisition and/or lapsing of the acquisition?

FACTS

The subsequent purchaser is the original writ petitioner, who in the year 2018 acquired the rights and interest in the land. But the original writ petitioner was not the recorded owner when under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, of 1894 the award was issued concerning the land in question. And from all the records, it appeared before the High Court, that the claimed right by the original writ petitioner was based on the 2015 Assignment. Under Section 4 of the Act, 1894 notifications in this present case were issued and the award was declared.

APPELLANT’S CONTENTIONS

The appellants vehemently submitted that as such the respondent is the subsequent purchaser and is the original writ petitioner, who after the Act,2013 came into force purchased the property hence therefore as observed by this Court in the case, they held that he had no locus to challenge the acquisition/lapsing of the acquisition proceedings under the Act, 2013 as he is a subsequent purchaser. Then it was submitted that the High Court declared material that the acquisition is deemed to lapse in the writ petition filed about because of the reason that the respondent is a subsequent purchaser, and had no locus to challenge it as observed and held by the Court.

RESPONDENT’S CONTENTION

The learned senior counsel, however, has submitted that the decision of this Court needs some re-consideration under the Act, 2013 for certain relevant aspects which have not been previously dealt with and/or have been considered. But at the same time, he is not disputing or contradicting the fact that the subsequent purchaser is the original writ petitioner, who in the year 2018 acquired the right, title and interest in the disputed property or even after Act, 2013 came into force.

JUDGEMENT

The Supreme Court after looking into the facts and reasons stated the appeal is successful. And in the view of the latter case, the High Court committed some serious error while for instance entertaining the writ petition of the response that is the original writ petitioner. Then it was also seen that the court has materially erred while declaring concerning the land in question, acquisition under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013 has lapsed in a writ petition filed by, the original writ petitioner, the respondent who is a subsequent purchaser.

The Supreme Court then held that the judgment and order passed by the High Court are hereby quashed and set aside. The original Writ Petition filed before the High Court stands dismissed. At the same time all the pending applications, stand disposed of and the present appeals are allowed accordingly. But at the same time looking into the facts and circumstances of the case, it held that there shall be no order as to costs.