The Court, however, found merit in the appellant’s contentions. It, therefore, set aside the Delhi High Court decision, observing:
“The High Court has committed a serious error in entertaining the writ petition … and has materially erred in declaring that the acquisition with respect to the land in question is deemed to have lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013 in a writ petition filed by … a subsequent purchaser.”
Source: Barandbench
