Case Note & Summary
The Supreme Court heard appeals filed by the Delhi Development Authority and Government of NCT of Delhi against a High Court judgment that declared land acquisition had lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. The dispute centered on whether the original writ petitioner, who was a subsequent purchaser of the land, had standing to challenge the acquisition. The land acquisition process began with a Section 4 notification under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 on November 25, 1980, and an award was declared on June 5, 1987. The original writ petitioner claimed rights through an Assignment Deed of 2015 and filed a writ petition in 2015, which the High Court allowed in 2018, declaring the acquisition had lapsed. The appellants argued that as a subsequent purchaser who acquired the property after the 2013 Act came into force, the respondent lacked locus standi to challenge the acquisition, citing precedents including Delhi Administration Thr. Secretary, Land and Building Department and Ors. Vs. Pawan Kumar and Ors. and Delhi Development Authority Vs. Godfrey Phillips (I) Ltd. & Ors. The respondent's counsel acknowledged the petitioner was a subsequent purchaser but suggested the precedent in Shiv Kumar & Anr. Vs. Union of India & Ors. required reconsideration. The Supreme Court analyzed the issue, noting it was not res integra due to the Three Judge Bench decision in Shiv Kumar & Anr., which had been followed in subsequent cases and overruled the contrary view in Government (NCT of Delhi) Vs. Manav Dharam Trust and Anr. The Court held that a subsequent purchaser has no locus standi to challenge acquisition proceedings or claim lapsing under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act. Consequently, the Court found the High Court committed a serious error in entertaining the writ petition and declaring the acquisition lapsed. The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, quashed and set aside the High Court's judgment, and dismissed the original writ petition, with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Land Acquisition Law - Locus Standi - Subsequent Purchaser - Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, Section 24(2) - Original writ petitioner was a subsequent purchaser who acquired property in 2018 after the 2013 Act came into force - Supreme Court held that a subsequent purchaser has no locus standi to challenge acquisition proceedings or claim lapsing under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act, following the Three Judge Bench decision in Shiv Kumar & Anr. Vs. Union of India & Ors. (Paras 3, 6-6.2) B) Land Acquisition Law - Precedent - Binding Authority - Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 - Three Judge Bench decision in Shiv Kumar & Anr. Vs. Union of India & Ors. established that subsequent purchasers cannot challenge acquisition - This decision was followed in subsequent cases and overruled the contrary view in Government (NCT of Delhi) Vs. Manav Dharam Trust and Anr. - Supreme Court applied this binding precedent to hold that the High Court erred in entertaining the writ petition filed by a subsequent purchaser (Paras 6-6.2)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the original writ petitioner being a subsequent purchaser had locus to challenge the acquisition and/or lapsing of the acquisition under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013
Final Decision
Both appeals allowed, impugned judgment and order passed by High Court quashed and set aside, original Writ Petition No. 11230 of 2015 filed before High Court stands dismissed, no order as to costs
Law Points
- Subsequent purchaser lacks locus standi to challenge land acquisition proceedings or claim lapsing under Section 24(2) of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition
- Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act
- 2013
- Three Judge Bench decision in Shiv Kumar & Anr. Vs. Union of India & Ors. is binding precedent
- contrary view in Government (NCT of Delhi) Vs. Manav Dharam Trust and Anr. is not good law
