Custodial Death | Pendency Of Criminal Trial No Bar For Awarding Compensation Under Public Law Remedy: Gauhati High Court Suit For Possession Under Section 6 Specific Relief Act Barred If Filed Beyond Six Months Of Dispossession: Madras High Court Subsequent Purchaser Is Representative Of Judgment Debtor, Separate Suit Challenging Execution Sale Barred Under Section 47 CPC: Kerala High Court Statutory Bail Restrictions Melt Down When Pre-Trial Detention Is Prolonged & Trial Is Unlikely To Conclude Soon: Delhi High Court Failure To Apprise Accused Of Right Under Section 50 NDPS Act Vitiates Search & Recovery: J&K & Ladakh High Court Section 12(5) Arbitration Act Inapplicable To Proceedings Commenced Before 2015 Amendment; Executing Court Can't Apply Neutrality Norms Retrospectively: Punjab & Haryana High Court Banks Can Share Sale Proceeds Of Secured Assets Outside Liquidation Estate With Homebuyers Under Compromise Agreement: Kerala High Court Private Rights Must Yield To Public Interest: Andhra Pradesh High Court Directs Removal Of Encroachments On Public Road Review Jurisdiction Cannot Be Invoked To Re-Agitate Factual Disputes Or Seek Re-Hearing On Merits: Allahabad High Court Recovery Under Section 27 Evidence Act Vitiated If Police Already Present At Spot Before Arrival Of Panch Witnesses: Bombay High Court Mere Non-Compliance Or Delay In Procedure Under Section 52A NDPS Act Is An Irregularity, Not An Illegality Entitling Accused To Bail: Calcutta High Court Recovery Of Weapon Used In Commission Of Offence Not A Sine Qua Non For Conviction If Ocular Evidence Is Corroborated: Allahabad High Court Seized Vehicles Shouldn't Be Kept Idle To Rot In Police Stations, Utility Vanishes Due To Stagnation: Karnataka High Court Or 39 CPC | Trial Court Erred In Dismissing Injunction Application Despite Respondent's 'No Objection' To Restraining Share Transfer: Gauhati 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.

Latest Legal News