DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Vs. DAYANAND

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. 3357 of 2016 by which the High Court has allowed the said writ petition preferred by the original writ petitioner - subsequent purchaser and has declared that the acquisition proceedings initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as "Act, 1894 ") with regard to the land in question is deemed to have lapsed under Sec. 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.) We have heard Shri Nitin Mishra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant and Shri Amit Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No. 1 .

(3.) From the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court, and even as per the counter affidavit filed by the Land Acquisition Collector and the DDA, it appears that the possession of the subject land had been taken on 26/11/2012 and was handed over to DDA. However, thereafter, the High Court has declared that the acquisition with respect to the land in question is deemed to have lapsed under Sec. 24(2) of the Act, 2013 solely on the ground that the compensation in respect of the entire area of the subject land has not been paid to the original writ petitioner. At this stage, it is required to be noted that as such the original writ petitioner is the subsequent purchaser and the maintainability of the writ petition at his instance was raised before the High Court, however, the High Court has overruled the said petition relying upon the decision in the case of Government (NCT of Delhi) Vs. Manav Dharam Trust and Anr., (2017) 6 SCC 751.