Supreme Court Strikes Down Expulsion of Bihar MLC as Disproportionate, Orders Immediate Reinstatement Private Banks Not Subject to Writ Jurisdiction Under Article 226: Punjab & Haryana High Court Mere Allegation of Forgery is Not Enough: Madhya Pradesh High Court Dismisses Second Appeal in Partition Dispute When a Case is Made Out for Bail, Courts Should Not Hesitate: Kerala High Court Allows Bail Despite Commercial Quantity of Drugs Seized Retailers Cannot Be Prosecuted for Manufacturer’s Fault" – Karnataka High Court Quashes Case Against Pesticide Dealers Mere Issuance of a Cheque Does Not Prove Legally Enforceable Debt": Delhi High Court Upholds Acquittal in Cheque Dishonor Case Courts Cannot Ignore Urgent Repairs When Public Safety is at Stake: Calcutta High Court Upholds Trial Court's Order Mutation Entries Do Not Confer Ownership: Bombay High Court Rejects Premature Dismissal of Partition Suit No Substantial Question of Law – High Court Cannot Re-Appreciate Evidence Under Section 100 CPC: Andhra Pradesh High Court Injunction Cannot Be Granted Without Proof of Possession: Allahabad High Court Quashes Relief in Land Dispute Section 197 CrPC | Sanction for Prosecution is a Shield, Not a Sword: Supreme Court Quashes Criminal Case Against BIS Officer Landlord is the Best Judge of His Needs: Supreme Court Orders Eviction in Favor of Landowner Vijaya Bank TT Scam | Supreme Court Acquits Jeweller in ₹6.7 Crore Vijaya Bank Fraud Case, Orders Return of 205 Gold Bars Procurement Preference for Small Enterprises is a Legal Mandate, Not a Mere Policy: Supreme Court Rules in Favor of MSMEs Revisional Jurisdiction Cannot Be Invoked Against Interlocutory Orders of Commercial Courts: Orissa High Court Declares Section 8 Bar Absolute Victim’s Testimony Must Be of Sterling Quality to Be Sole Basis of Conviction: Kerala High Court Reduces Sentence of Pastor Convicted for Repeated Rape of Minor Providing Set-Top Boxes to Subscribers Constitutes Sale”: Karnataka High Court Upholds VAT on Tata Play Limited Mere Registration of FIR Cannot Justify Denial of Passport Renewal: Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court

Supreme Court Quashes High Court Order on Land Acquisition: Subsequent Purchasers Cannot Challenge Acquisition

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


New Delhi, May 4, 2023: In a significant judgment, the Supreme Court of India has quashed the order passed by the High Court of Delhi declaring the deemed lapse of land acquisition. The Court held that subsequent purchasers do not have the locus standi to challenge the acquisition and pray for its deemed lapse.

The case, Civil Appeal No. 3340 of 2023, arose from the acquisition of land by the Delhi Development Authority (DDA). The High Court had allowed a writ petition challenging the acquisition on the grounds that the compensation had not been paid or tendered to the subsequent purchasers.

Supreme Court noted that the High Court had relied on the decision in the case of Govt. of NCT of Delhi vs. Manav Dharma Trust (2017) 6 SCC 751, which allowed subsequent purchasers to challenge acquisitions. However, the Supreme Court held that the Manav Dharma Trust case is no longer good law.

The Court referred to its own decisions in Shiv Kumar & Anr. vs. Union of India & Ors. (2019) 10 SCC 229 and Delhi Development Authority vs. Godfrey Philips (I) Ltd. & Ors. Civil Appeal No. 3073/2022, which clarified that subsequent purchasers have no locus standi to challenge the acquisition or pray for its deemed lapse.

The Supreme Court observed that the subsequent purchasers in this case were not recorded owners and had acquired the land after the acquisition had taken place. Therefore, they could not challenge the acquisition based on non-payment of compensation.

Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order, stating that it was unsustainable. The appeal was allowed, and no costs were imposed.

May 4, 2023

Delhi Development Authority vs Narendra Kumar Jain & Ors.

Similar News