Mr. Samrat Nigam and Mr. Bhuvanesh Sehgal, Advs. v. GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS.....

1. This is an application filed by the applicants / petitioners seeking restoration of the writ petition. The writ petition was dismissed in default and for non-prosecution on April 27, 2023.

2. For the reasons stated in the application and as there is no objection by Mr. Sanjay Poddar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Delhi Development Authority and also the counsel for the W.P.(C) 5402/2015 Page 2 other respondents, the same is allowed and the writ petition is restored to its original number. The application is disposed of.

3. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties on the writ petition as well. W.P.(C) 5402/2015

4. This matter has been remanded back by the Supreme Court in terms of the order passed on September 17, 2021 in the following manner: “This appeal takes exception to the judgment and order dated 28.11.2016 passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in WP(C) No. 5402/2015, whereby the High Court has declared that the acquisition proceedings had lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. For, neither physical possession of the subject land had been taken nor compensation paid to the writ petitioners. In the appeal filed before this Court, it is urged that the private respondents/writ petitioners were not the original owners and being subsequent purchasers had no locus to seek declaration that the acquisition had lapsed, in terms of exposition of the Constitution Bench of this Court in Indore Development Authority vs. Manohar Lal & Ors., 2020 (8) SCC 129 and in Shiv Kumar and Anr. vs. Union of India and Ors.,

From the judgment under challenge, it is noticed that this aspect has not been dealt with by the High Court. That being a mixed question of facts and law, we deem it appropriate to set aside the impugned order and relegate the parties before the High Court by restoring the writ petition to the file of the High Court to its original number. The High Court may then W.P.(C) 5402/2015 Page 3 consider all aspects of the matter afresh on its own merits and in accordance with law after giving fair opportunity to the parties, including to file further affidavits/documents in support of their case. We may not be understood to have expressed any final opinion either way on the merits of the controversy or the stand taken by any party in this appeal. The appeal is disposed of in the above terms.”

5. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners with the following prayers: “In view of the above said facts and circumstances, it is most respectfully and humbly prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to: i. Issue an appropriate writ, order or directions declaring the entire acquisition proceedings in respect of the land of petitioner ad-measuring 09bhigas and 03 biswas comprised in khasra Nos. 1472/1 and 1473 situated in the revenue estate of Chattarpur, Tehsil Mehrauli, Delhi, including the notification bearing no. 9(16) /80/L&B dated 25.11.1980 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and ail subsequent proceedings to have lapsed in view of Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Re-habilitation and Re-settlement Act, 2013. ii. Pass any further order/s that this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case.”

6. On April 27, 2023, we have recorded the submission made by Mr. Sanjay Poddar that the petitioners being subsequent purchasers cannot seek the benefit of Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. W.P.(C) 5402/2015 Page 4

7. Mr. Samrat Nigam, learned counsel for the petitioners would concede to the fact that as per the writ petition also, the petitioners are subsequent purchasers. The notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was issued on November 25,

1980. Pursuant thereto, Section 6 notification was issued on June 7, 1985 and award bearing No.15/1987-88 was made by the respondent No.2 on June 5, 1987. He also concede to the fact that the petitioners purchased the land in question on December 29, 1989 and December 30, 1989 by way of four registered sale deeds.

8. On the objection taken by Mr. Poddar, Mr. Samrat Nigam would submit that the petitioners have got the land in terms of the sale deeds and not through GPA. Mr. Poddar would submit that merely because the lands have been purchased through sale deeds will not make any difference in view of the fact that the petitioners being the subsequent purchasers after the notification under Sections 4 and 6 and also the award, such transaction shall be void and non-est in law. In fact, he has drawn our attention to the judgment of which reference was made by him during the hearing on April 27, 2023 in the case of Delhi Development Authority v. MGS (India) Private Limited & Ors., 2023 SCC OnLine SC 154, wherein according to him, the Supreme Court has held as under: