M.R.SHAH,J. - (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. 9545 of 2015 by which the High Court has allowed the said writ petition 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 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.)Having heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respective parties and on going through the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court, it appears that a specific plea was raised before the High Court on the maintainability of the writ petition by the original writ petitioner as he was the subsequent purchaser. However, relying upon the decision of this Court in the case of Government (NCT of Delhi) Vs. Manav Dharam Trust and Anr., (2017) 6 SCC 751, the High Court has overruled the said objection and thereafter has entertained the writ petition preferred by the respondent No. 1 herein - original writ petitioner - subsequent purchaser and thereafter after following the decision of this Court in the case of Pune Municipal Corporation and Anr. Vs. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki and Ors., (2014) 3 SCC 183, the High Court has allowed the said writ petition and has declared that the acquisition with respect to the land in question is deemed to have lapsed as compensation has not been paid to the original landowners.
(3.)The decision of this Court in the case of Manav Dharam Trust and Anr. (supra), which has been relied upon by the High Court while passing the impugned judgment and order and overruling the objection raised on behalf of the appellant on the maintainability of the writ petition at the instance of the respondent No. 1 - original writ petitioner is held to be not a good law in view of the subsequent decision of this Court in the case of Shiv Kumar and Anr. Vs. Union of India and Ors., (2019) 10 SCC 229 and thereafter in the subsequent decisions in the case of Delhi Development Authority Vs. Godfrey Philips (I) Ltd. & Ors., - Civil Appeal No. 3073 of 2022 and Delhi Administration Thr. Secretary, Land and Building Department & Ors. Vs. Pawan Kumar & Ors., - Civil Appeal No. 3646 of 2022. In the aforesaid decisions, it is specifically observed and held by this Court that the subsequent purchaser has no locus to challenge the acquisition / lapse of acquisition.
;