Delhi High Court
Ajay Sahni & Anr vs Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi & Ors on 11 May, 2023
2023:DHC:3236-DB
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of decision: May 11, 2023
+ W.P.(C) 5402/2015, CM APPL. 23328/2023
AJAY SAHNI & ANR
..... Petitioners
Through: Mr. Samrat Nigam and
Mr. Bhuvanesh Sehgal, Advs.
versus
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS
..... Respondents
Through: Mr. R.K. Sharma, Adv. for
Mr. Siddharth Panda, Adv. for
R-1 & R-2/LAC/L&B
Mr. Sanjay Poddar, Sr. Adv. with
Ms. Monika Tripathi, SC with
Mr. Nitin Mishra and Mr. Govind
Kumar, Advs. for DDA
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR MENDIRATTA
V. KAMESWAR RAO, J. (ORAL)
CM APPL. 23328/2023 (for restoration)
1. This is an application filed by the applicants / petitioners
seeking restoration of the writ petition. The writ petition was
dismissed in default and for non-prosecution on April 27, 2023.
2. For the reasons stated in the application and as there is no
objection by Mr. Sanjay Poddar, learned Senior Counsel appearing
for the Delhi Development Authority and also the counsel for the
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:JYOTIRMOY GHOSH W.P.(C) 5402/2015 Page 1
DASTIDAR
Signing Date:15.05.2023
11:19:48
2023:DHC:3236-DB
other respondents, the same is allowed and the writ petition is
restored to its original number. The application is disposed of.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties on the
writ petition as well.
W.P.(C) 5402/2015
4. This matter has been remanded back by the Supreme Court
in terms of the order passed on September 17, 2021 in the
following manner:
"This appeal takes exception to the judgment and
order dated 28.11.2016 passed by the High Court of
Delhi at New Delhi in WP(C) No. 5402/2015,
whereby the High Court has declared that the
acquisition proceedings had lapsed under Section
24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and
Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and
Resettlement Act, 2013. For, neither physical
possession of the subject land had been taken nor
compensation paid to the writ petitioners.
In the appeal filed before this Court, it is urged that
the private respondents/writ petitioners were not the
original owners and being subsequent purchasers had
no locus to seek declaration that the acquisition had
lapsed, in terms of exposition of the Constitution
Bench of this Court in Indore Development Authority
vs. Manohar Lal & Ors., 2020 (8) SCC 129 and in
Shiv Kumar and Anr. vs. Union of India and Ors.,
2019 (10) SCC 229.
From the judgment under challenge, it is noticed that
this aspect has not been dealt with by the High Court.
That being a mixed question of facts and law, we
deem it appropriate to set aside the impugned order
and relegate the parties before the High Court by
restoring the writ petition to the file of the High Court
to its original number. The High Court may then
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:JYOTIRMOY GHOSH W.P.(C) 5402/2015 Page 2
DASTIDAR
Signing Date:15.05.2023
11:19:48
2023:DHC:3236-DB
consider all aspects of the matter afresh on its own
merits and in accordance with law after giving fair
opportunity to the parties, including to file further
affidavits/documents in support of their case.
We may not be understood to have expressed any
final opinion either way on the merits of the
controversy or the stand taken by any party in this
appeal.
The appeal is disposed of in the above terms."
5. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners with the
following prayers:
"In view of the above said facts and circumstances, it is
most respectfully and humbly prayed that this Hon'ble
Court may be pleased to:
i. Issue an appropriate writ, order or directions declaring
the entire acquisition proceedings in respect of the land of
petitioner ad-measuring 09bhigas and 03 biswas
comprised in khasra Nos. 1472/1 and 1473 situated in the
revenue estate of Chattarpur, Tehsil Mehrauli, Delhi,
including the notification bearing no. 9(16) /80/L&B dated
25.11.1980 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition
Act, 1894 and ail subsequent proceedings to have lapsed in
view of Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation
and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Re-habilitation and
Re-settlement Act, 2013.
ii. Pass any further order/s that this Hon'ble Court may
deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the
present case."
6. On April 27, 2023, we have recorded the submission made
by Mr. Sanjay Poddar that the petitioners being subsequent
purchasers cannot seek the benefit of Section 24(2) of the Right to
Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition,
Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:JYOTIRMOY GHOSH W.P.(C) 5402/2015 Page 3
DASTIDAR
Signing Date:15.05.2023
11:19:48
2023:DHC:3236-DB
7. Mr. Samrat Nigam, learned counsel for the petitioners
would concede to the fact that as per the writ petition also, the
petitioners are subsequent purchasers. The notification under
Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was issued on November 25,
1980. Pursuant thereto, Section 6 notification was issued on June
7, 1985 and award bearing No.15/1987-88 was made by the
respondent No.2 on June 5, 1987. He also concede to the fact that
the petitioners purchased the land in question on December 29,
1989 and December 30, 1989 by way of four registered sale deeds.
8. On the objection taken by Mr. Poddar, Mr. Samrat Nigam
would submit that the petitioners have got the land in terms of the
sale deeds and not through GPA. Mr. Poddar would submit that
merely because the lands have been purchased through sale deeds
will not make any difference in view of the fact that the petitioners
being the subsequent purchasers after the notification under
Sections 4 and 6 and also the award, such transaction shall be void
and non-est in law. In fact, he has drawn our attention to the
judgment of which reference was made by him during the hearing
on April 27, 2023 in the case of Delhi Development Authority v.
MGS (India) Private Limited & Ors., 2023 SCC OnLine SC 154,
wherein according to him, the Supreme Court has held as under:
"3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent
- original writ petitioner though is not disputing that the
original writ petitioner was the subsequent purchaser and
purchased the land subsequent to the acquisition
proceedings. However, he has submitted that the decision
of this Court in the case of Shiv Kumar (supra) shall not be
applicable inasmuch as in that case, the original writ
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:JYOTIRMOY GHOSH W.P.(C) 5402/2015 Page 4
DASTIDAR
Signing Date:15.05.2023
11:19:48
2023:DHC:3236-DB
petitioner had no title and he claimed the title on the basis
of the general power of attorney. It is submitted that at the
relevant time, the decision of this Court in the case
of Government (NCT of Delhi) v. Manav Dharam
Trust, (2017) 6 SCC 751 was on the point, which came to
be relied upon by the High Court.
xxx xxx xxx
5. It is not in dispute that the original writ petitioner is the
subsequent purchaser, who purchased the land in question
subsequent to the acquisition proceedings and even after
the award was declared. Therefore, being a subsequent
purchaser, as observed and held by this Court in catena of
decisions, more particularly, in the case of Shiv
Kumar (supra) and Godfrey Phillips (I) Ltd. (supra) and
other subsequent decisions, subsequent purchaser has no
locus to challenge the lapsing of the acquisition.
6. The submission on behalf of the respondent that the
decision of this Court in the case of Shiv Kumar (supra)
shall not be applicable as in that case, the original writ
petitioner claimed the title on the basis of a general power
of attorney and in the present case, the subsequent
purchaser purchased the property by registered sale deed
is concerned, it is required to be noted that the law laid
down by this Court in the aforesaid decision is that a
subsequent purchaser has no locus to challenge the
acquisition. In the case of Godfrey Phillips (I) Ltd. (supra),
it is specifically observed and held that the subsequent
purchaser has no locus to pray for lapsing of the
acquisition.
xxx xxx xxx
8. From the impugned judgment and order passed by the
High Court, it appears that though before the High Court
and so stated in the counter, an objection was raised on
maintainability of the writ petition, at the instance of the
original writ petitioner - subsequent purchaser, the same
has not been dealt with by the High Court. The High Court
ought to have dealt with the said aspect. Be that it may, the
fact remains that the respondent being a subsequent
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:JYOTIRMOY GHOSH W.P.(C) 5402/2015 Page 5
DASTIDAR
Signing Date:15.05.2023
11:19:48
2023:DHC:3236-DB
purchaser had no locus to pray for lapsing of the
acquisition as observed and held by this Court in the
aforesaid decisions. Therefore, the impugned judgment
and order passed by the High Court is unsustainable."
9. Mr. Poddar in support of his submission has also relied
upon the judgment in the case of Meera Sahni & Ors. v. Lt.
Governor of Delhi, (2008) 9 SCC 177, wherein according to him,
the Supreme Court has categorically held that the petitioners (in
that case) being subsequent purchasers of the land in question did
not derive any title to the land and cannot challenge the acquisition
proceedings as the sale deeds are void.
10. We agree with the submission made by Mr. Poddar by
relying upon the above judgments. In view of the authoritative
pronouncement of the Supreme Court in the aforesaid judgments,
we are of the view that the prayers as made by the petitioners in the
present petition are not maintainable. The petition is dismissed.
V. KAMESWAR RAO, J
ANOOP KUMAR MENDIRATTA, J
MAY 11, 2023/aky
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:JYOTIRMOY GHOSH W.P.(C) 5402/2015 Page 6
DASTIDAR
Signing Date:15.05.2023
11:19:48
