Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants has vehemently submitted that the original writ petitioner before the High Court was the subsequent purchaser, who admittedly purchased the property – land in question after the acquisition proceedings commenced and the award was declared. 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. Therefore, being a subsequent purchaser, as observed and held by this Court in catena of decisions, more particularly, in the case of Shiv Kumar & Anr. (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. Therefore, the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court is unsustainable.
Case Title: DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Vs. MGS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED (2023 INSC 135)
Case Number: C.A. No.-000944-000944 / 2023
