MACT | A Minor Cannot Be Treated as a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Consensual Love Affair Not Cheating Under IPC Section 417: Madras High Court Acquits Man Despite Paternity Confirmation Review Jurisdiction is an Ant-Hole in a Pigeon-Hol: Madras High Court Dismisses Review Plea Against Order Upholding Arbitral Award on Liquidated Damages Bank Can Freeze Guarantor’s Salary Account to Recover Loan Dues: Kerala High Court Clarifies CPC Exemption Does Not Apply to Banker’s Right Revenue Entry Calling Property ‘Ancestral’ Does Not Create Title: Gujarat High Court Upholds Registered Will in Second Appeal Licensee Cannot Resist Resumption Of Railway Land: Gauhati High Court Upholds Eviction For Amrit Bharat Station Scheme Mere Non-Payment of Business Dues Is Not Cheating: Calcutta High Court Protects Traders from Criminal Prosecution in Purely Civil Dispute Prosecution’s Failure to Prove Age of Prosecutrix Beyond Reasonable Doubt Fatal to POCSO Conviction: Rajasthan High Court No Title, No Right, No Equity: Bombay High Court Demolishes Claim Over Footpath Stall, Imposes ₹5 Lakh Costs for Abuse of Process Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. Does Not Bar Complainant From Seeking Magistrate’s Permission: Allahabad High Court Clarifies Law on Non-Cognizable Investigations Un-Retracted Section 108 Statement Is Binding: Delhi High Court Declines to Reopen ₹3.5 Crore Cigarette Smuggling Valuation Section 34 Is Not an Appeal in Disguise: Delhi High Court Upholds 484-Day Extension in IRCON–Afcons Tunnel Arbitration Section 432(2) Cannot Be Rendered Fatuous: Calcutta High Court Reasserts Balance Between Judicial Opinion and Executive Discretion in Remission Matters Termination of Mandate Is Not Termination of Arbitration: Bombay High Court Revives Reference and Appoints Substitute Arbitrator CBI Can’t Prosecute When Bank Suffers No Loss: Andhra Pradesh High Court Discharges Bhimavaram Hospitals Directors in ₹1.5 Crore SBI Case Section 256 CrPC Cannot Be A Shield For An Accused Who Never Faced Trial: Allahabad High Court Restores 8 Cheque Bounce Complaints

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