Delay in Test Identification & Absence of Motive Fatal to Prosecution: Allahabad High Court Acquits Man for Murder Tokre Koli or Dhor Koli – Both Stand on Same Legal Footing: Bombay High Court Slams Scrutiny Committee for Disregarding Pre-Constitutional Records Consent Is No Defence When Victim Is Under 16: Delhi High Court Upholds Rape Conviction Granting Pre-Arrest Bail in Minor Rape Cases Would Send a Harmful Societal Signal: Delhi High Court Refuses Anticipatory Bail to Accused Citing POCSO’s Rigorous Standards Void Marriage No Shield Against Cruelty Charges: Karnataka High Court Affirms Section 498A Applies Even In Deceptive and Void Marital Relationships Consolidation Authorities Cannot Confer Ownership Or Alter Scheme Post Confirmation Without Due Process: Punjab & Haryana High Court Reaffirms Civil Court’s Jurisdiction Over Void Post-Scheme Orders Litigation Policy is Not Law, Can’t Enforce Guidelines Through Courts: Rajasthan High Court Refuses to Entertain Quo Warranto Against Additional Advocate General’s Appointment Police and Lawyers Are Two Limbs of Justice System: Rajasthan High Court Takes Suo Motu Cognizance in Police Misconduct Incident Sole Testimony, Forensic Gaps, and Withheld Witness: No Conviction Possible: Delhi High Court Affirms Acquittal in Murder Trial Remand Keeps the Dispute Alive – Not Arrears: Bombay High Court Holds SVLDRS Relief Must Be Computed Under Litigation Category Daughter’s Right Extinguished When Partition Effected Prior to 2005 Amendment: Madras High Court Trial Courts Cannot Direct Filing of Challan After Conviction — Punjab & Haryana High Court Quashes Directions Against DSP Veer Singh Rule 4 Creates Parity, Not a Parallel Pension Pipeline: Rajasthan High Court Denies Dual Pension to Ex-Chief Justice Serving as SHRC Chairperson Right to Be Heard Must Be Preserved Where Claim Has a Legal Basis: Orissa High Court Upholds Impleadment of Will Beneficiary in Partition Suit Long-Term Ad Hocism Is Exploitation, Not Employment: Orissa High Court Orders Regularization Of Junior Typist After 25 Years Of Service PIL Cannot Be a Tool for Personal Grievances: Supreme Court Upholds Municipal Body’s Power to Revise Property Tax After 16 Years Omission of Accused’s Name by Eyewitness in FIR is a Fatal Lacuna: Supreme Court Acquits Man Convicted of Murder Correction In Revenue Map Under Section 30 Isn’t A Tool To Shift Plot Location After 17 Years: Supreme Court Quashes High Court’s Remand Casteist Abuses Must Be In Public View: Supreme Court Quashes SC/ST Act Proceedings Where Alleged Insults Occurred Inside Complainant’s House Resignation Bars Pension, But Not Gratuity: Supreme Court Draws Sharp Line Between Voluntary Retirement and Resignation in DTC Employee Case

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