C.T. Ravikumar JUDGMENT
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. 1202 of 2017 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 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 Government of NCT of Delhi and Anr. have preferred the present appeal.
2. From the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court, it appears that it was the specific case on behalf of the Appellants and so stated in the counter affidavit before the High Court that the possession of the land in question was taken over on 17.09.2008 and even the name of the Government was mutated in the revenue records. However, thereafter and despite the above, solely relying upon the decision of this Court in the case of Pune Municipal Corporation and Anr. v. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki and Ors., MANU/SC/0055/2014 : (2014) 3 SCC 183 and solely on the ground that the compensation was not paid or tendered in accordance with law, the High Court has declared that the land acquisition proceedings with respect to the land in question has lapsed Under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013.
2.1. At the outset, it is required to be noted that the original writ Petitioner before the High Court was the subsequent purchaser and as observed and held by this Court in the case of Delhi Development Authority v. Godfrey Philips (I) Ltd. and Ors., - Civil Appeal No. 3073 of 2022, subsequent purchaser is not entitled to claim lapsing of acquisition proceedings under the Act, 2013. Therefore, the High Court has materially erred in entertaining the writ petition by the original writ Petitioner - subsequent purchaser claiming lapsing of the acquisition proceedings under the Act, 2013.
2.2. Even otherwise, on merits also, the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court is unsustainable. While passing the impugned judgment and order and declaring that the acquisition proceedings with respect to the land in question has lapsed Under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013, the High Court has relied upon the decision of this Court in the case of Pune Municipal Corporation and Anr. (supra), which has been specifically overruled by the Constitution Bench of this Court in the case of Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal and Ors.,