Case Note & Summary
The dispute arose from a land acquisition matter where the Delhi High Court allowed a writ petition, declaring that the acquisition had lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. The appellants, Delhi Development Authority and Government of NCT of Delhi, challenged this decision before the Supreme Court, arguing that the original writ petitioner was a subsequent purchaser who had no locus standi to challenge the acquisition or pray for its lapsing. The respondent admitted to being a subsequent purchaser but contended that certain precedents were inapplicable due to differences in title claims. The core legal issue was whether a subsequent purchaser, who purchased land after acquisition proceedings commenced and the award was declared, had the standing to seek lapsing of the acquisition under Section 24(2). The appellants relied on Supreme Court decisions in Shiv Kumar & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors. and Delhi Development Authority v. Godfrey Phillips (I) Ltd. & Ors., which established that subsequent purchasers lack locus standi. The respondent argued that Shiv Kumar was distinguishable because it involved title based on a general power of attorney, whereas here, the purchase was via registered sale deed, and relied on Government (NCT of Delhi) v. Manav Dharam Trust and Anr. The Supreme Court analyzed the precedents, holding that the principle from Shiv Kumar and Godfrey Phillips applies regardless of the mode of purchase, as the law clearly states that subsequent purchasers have no locus standi. It further noted that the Manav Dharam Trust decision had been held per incuriam in later cases. The Court found that the High Court failed to address the maintainability objection regarding the subsequent purchaser's locus standi, making its order unsustainable. Consequently, the Supreme Court allowed the appeals, quashed the High Court's judgment, and set aside the declaration of deemed lapse, 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) - The Supreme Court considered whether a subsequent purchaser, who bought land after acquisition proceedings commenced and award was declared, could challenge the acquisition or pray for its lapsing under Section 24(2). Held that a subsequent purchaser has no locus standi to challenge the acquisition or pray for its lapsing, as per established precedents, and the High Court's failure to address this maintainability issue rendered its order unsustainable. (Paras 1-6) B) Land Acquisition Law - Judicial Precedent - Per Incuriam Decision - Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 - The Court addressed reliance on an earlier decision that was held to be per incuriam in subsequent rulings. Held that the decision in Government (NCT of Delhi) v. Manav Dharam Trust and Anr. was per incuriam and could not be relied upon, reinforcing the principle that subsequent purchasers lack locus standi. (Paras 3-5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether a subsequent purchaser of land, who purchased after acquisition proceedings commenced and award was declared, has locus standi to challenge the acquisition or pray for its lapsing under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013
Final Decision
Supreme Court allowed appeals, quashed and set aside High Court judgment, held no deemed lapse of acquisition, with no order as to costs
Law Points
- Subsequent purchaser has no locus standi to challenge land acquisition or pray for its lapsing under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition
- Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act
- 2013
- as established by Supreme Court precedents
