As per case facts, the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) appealed against a High Court judgment that declared a land acquisition lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation ... and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. The High Court had allowed the writ petition, relying on a previous Supreme Court decision, *Govt. of NCT of Delhi Vs. Manav Dharma Trust*, which held that subsequent purchasers had the locus to challenge the acquisition if compensation was not paid or tendered. The question arose whether subsequent purchasers, relying on a precedent later deemed not good law, had the standing to challenge a land acquisition and seek its lapse. Finally, the Supreme Court held that the *Govt. of NCT of Delhi Vs. Manav Dharma Trust* decision, which the High Court relied upon, is no longer considered good law. Referring to its subsequent decisions in *Shiv Kumar & Anr. Vs. Union of India & Ors.* and *Delhi Development Authority Vs. Godfrey Philips (I) Ltd. & Ors.*, the Supreme Court unequivocally ruled that a subsequent purchaser has no locus to challenge the acquisition or pray for its deemed lapse. Consequently, the Supreme Court quashed and set aside the High Court's impugned judgment and order, allowing the appeal.