Case Note & Summary
The Supreme Court of India heard an appeal by the Government of NCT of Delhi against a judgment and order dated 17.07.2017 passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in Writ Petition (Civil) No.2989 of 2016. The High Court had allowed the writ petition filed by private respondents, who were original writ petitioners and subsequent purchasers of the land in question, declaring that the acquisition of the land was deemed to have lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. The appellant contended before the Supreme Court that the original writ petitioners, being subsequent purchasers, had no locus standi to file the writ petition or seek any relief regarding the acquisition, as they did not derive any right or title to the land at the time of the award. It was also argued that possession could not be taken due to pending litigation which ultimately upheld the acquisition proceedings. The Supreme Court examined the impugned judgment and noted that the High Court, without considering the locus standi of the original writ petitioners, solely relied on the fact that possession had not been taken and compensation not paid, citing Pune Municipal Corporation and Anr. v. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki and Ors., to allow the writ petition. The Court found that the issue of locus for subsequent purchasers was not res integra, as it had been settled by a three-judge bench decision in Shiv Kumar & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors., followed in other cases, which specifically held that subsequent purchasers have no locus to challenge the acquisition or its lapsing. Consequently, the Supreme Court held that the High Court materially erred in entertaining the writ petition filed by subsequent purchasers and declaring the acquisition lapsed. The appeal was allowed, setting aside the High Court's judgment.
Headnote
A) Land Acquisition Law - Locus Standi - Subsequent Purchaser's Right to Challenge Acquisition - Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, Section 24(2) - The High Court allowed a writ petition by subsequent purchasers declaring acquisition lapsed under Section 24(2) without considering their locus - The Supreme Court held that subsequent purchasers have no locus to challenge acquisition or its lapsing, following binding precedents, and the High Court materially erred in entertaining the petition (Paras 1-2.1). B) Land Acquisition Law - Judicial Precedent - Binding Authority on Locus Standi - Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 - The issue of subsequent purchaser's locus is not res integra in light of three-judge bench decisions - The Court cited Shiv Kumar & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors. and other cases which specifically hold that subsequent purchasers lack standing to challenge acquisition - These precedents were binding on the High Court and should have been followed (Paras 2.1-2.2).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the High Court erred in entertaining a writ petition filed by subsequent purchasers of land and declaring the acquisition as lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, without considering their locus standi.
Final Decision
Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court, holding that subsequent purchasers have no locus to challenge acquisition or its lapsing.
Law Points
- Subsequent purchasers of land have no locus standi to challenge acquisition proceedings or seek lapsing under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition
- Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act
- 2013
- Locus standi is a threshold issue that must be considered before examining merits
- The principle of res integra does not apply where binding precedents have settled the legal position
