Case Note & Summary
The Supreme Court heard an appeal by the Government of NCT of Delhi against a High Court judgment that had allowed a writ petition declaring land acquisition deemed lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. The land acquisition process began with a Section 4 notification under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 on 25.11.1980, followed by a Section 6 declaration on 07.06.1985 and an award under Section 11 on 09.07.1987. The original writ petitioner, respondent No. 1, purchased the land in 1990, after the Section 4 notification, making them a subsequent purchaser. The appellants argued before the High Court that the original writ petitioner lacked locus standi to challenge the acquisition since the recorded owners—Parvati Jain, Lajja Ram, and D. L. Parti—never challenged the proceedings. The High Court did not address this issue and allowed the writ petition. The Supreme Court considered whether a subsequent purchaser has locus standi to challenge acquisition or its deemed lapse. It referenced precedents, including Shiv Kumar & Anr. Vs. Union of India & Ors., (2019) 10 SCC 229 and Delhi Development Authority Vs. Godfrey Phillips (I) Ltd. & Ors., Civil Appeal No. 3073 of 2022, which hold that subsequent purchasers lack such locus. The Court reasoned that since the original owners did not challenge the acquisition, the subsequent purchaser had no right to do so. It found the High Court erred in entertaining the writ petition. Consequently, the Supreme Court quashed the High Court's order, set aside the declaration of deemed lapse, and allowed the appeal with no order as to costs.
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 original writ petitioner purchased land after Section 4 notification was issued in 1980, making them a subsequent purchaser - The Supreme Court held that subsequent purchasers lack locus standi to challenge acquisition or its deemed lapse, particularly when original owners never challenged the acquisition - The High Court erred in entertaining the writ petition on this ground (Paras 1-3). B) Land Acquisition Law - Deemed Lapse of Acquisition - Section 24(2) Application - Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, Section 24(2) - The High Court had declared acquisition deemed lapsed under Section 24(2) based on the writ petition by a subsequent purchaser - The Supreme Court quashed this finding, ruling that no deemed lapse occurs when the challenge comes from a party without proper standing - The acquisition proceedings remain valid as the original owners did not contest them (Paras 1-3).
Issue of Consideration
Whether a subsequent purchaser has locus standi to challenge land acquisition or its deemed lapse 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 the appeal, quashed and set aside the impugned High Court judgment and order, declared no deemed lapse of acquisition proceedings, with no order as to costs
Law Points
- Subsequent purchaser has no locus standi to challenge land acquisition or its deemed lapse under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition
- Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act
- 2013
- Acquisition proceedings remain valid when original owners did not challenge them
