That the respondent No 1 herein – original writ petitioner filed a writ petition before the High Court seeking declaration that the acquisition with respect to the suit lands, i.e.,
Khasra
No 589 (1-8), 1 bigha and 8 biswas (out of 4 bighas) situated in the Revenue Estate of Village Maidan Garhi, NCT of Delhi, is deemed to have lapsed by virtue of Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013.
The High Court dismissed the writ petitions vide judgment and order dated 25.11.2004 and upheld the acquisition proceedings. Though, it was also the case on behalf of the Delhi Development Authority that the substantial possession with respect to most of the lands to be acquired were taken over, however, with respect to some portion of the acquisition, the possession could not be taken over due to the pending litigations.
Also Read: https://newslaw.in/supreme-court/quashing-of-enhanced-tuition-fee-in-private-medical-colleges/
Manika Tripathy, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant – DDA has submitted that as such the original writ petitioner had no locus at all to file the writ petition before the High Court challenging the acquisition and/or praying for declaration.
1
It is further submitted by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant – DDA that even on merits also, the Hon’ble High Court has erred in holding and/or declaring that the acquisition with respect to the lands in question has lapsed by virtue of Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013. Vasisht, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the original writ petitioner – respondent No 1 while opposing the present appeal has vehemently submitted that considering the fact that neither the possession was taken over nor the compensation was paid/tendered, as rightly observed and held by the Hon’ble High Court, Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013 shall be attracted and, therefore, there shall be deemed lapse of the acquisition.
1 – original writ petitioner filed the writ petition and claimed the right, title, or interest in the lands in question on the basis of the Agreement to Sell dated 22.05.2016. (supra) after considering the other decisions on the right of the subsequent purchaser to claim lapse of acquisition proceedings, i.e., Meera Sahni Vs. Commissioner, Bangalore Development Authority, (2015) 17 SCC 1, it is specifically observed and held that subsequent purchaser has no right to claim lapse of acquisition proceedings. 1 Under the circumstances and even accepting the case on behalf of the original writ petitioner that she might have acquired some interest on the basis of the Agreement to Sell dated 22.05.2016, being a subsequent purchaser and/or having acquired the interest in the lands in question subsequently, she was not having any right to claim lapse of acquisition proceedings under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013.
Under the circumstances and as observed and held by this Court in the case of Indore Development Authority (supra), there cannot be any lapse of acquisition under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013 on the ground of possession could not be taken over by the authority and/or the compensation could not be deposited / tendered due to the pending litigations. Consequently, the writ petition before the High Court being Writ Petition (C)
Also Read: https://newslaw.in/supreme-court/final-decision-and-disclosure-in-collegium-meetings/
No 11735 of 2016 stands dismissed.
Case Title: DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Vs. DAMINI WADHWA (2022 INSC 1174)
Case Number: C.A. No.-007962-007962 / 2022
