LAWS(SC)-2022-11-14

DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Vs. DAMINI WADHWA

Decided On November 04, 2022
DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Appellant
V/S
Damini Wadhwa Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in Writ Petition (C) No. 11735 of 2016 by which the High Court has allowed the said writ petition preferred by the private respondents herein - original writ petitioners and has declared that the acquisition with respect to the lands in question has lapsed by virtue of Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as "Act, 2013"), the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) has preferred the present appeal.

(2.) That the respondent No. 1 herein - original writ petitioner filed a writ petition before the High Court seeking declaration that the acquisition with respect to the suit lands, i.e., Khasra No. 589 (1-8), 1 bigha and 8 biswas (out of 4 bighas) situated in the Revenue Estate of Village Maidan Garhi, NCT of Delhi, is deemed to have lapsed by virtue of Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013.

(3.) Ms. Manika Tripathy, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant - DDA has submitted that as such the original writ petitioner had no locus at all to file the writ petition before the High Court challenging the acquisition and/or praying for declaration. It is submitted that the original writ petitioner filed the writ petition on the basis of the Agreement to Sell dated 22.05.2016, which does not inspire any confidence. It is submitted that even otherwise the said Agreement to Sell was much after the acquisition proceedings were initiated under the provisions of the Act, 1894. It is submitted that therefore as held by this Hon'ble Court in the case of Delhi Development Authority Vs. Godfrey Phillips (I) Ltd. & Ors., Civil appeal No. 3073 of 2022, subsequent purchaser is not entitled to claim lapsing of acquisition proceedings under the Act, 2013. It is submitted that therefore the aforesaid aspect has not been at all considered and/or dealt with by the High Court while passing the impugned judgment and order.