Case Note & Summary
The dispute arose from a land acquisition case concerning Khasra No. 668/1 min and 668/2 in Village Satbari, New Delhi. The Government of NCT of Delhi and another appellant challenged a High Court judgment that allowed a writ petition filed by a subsequent purchaser, declaring the acquisition proceedings 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 High Court had relied on the precedent in Pune Municipal Corporation v. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki, observing that neither possession was taken nor compensation paid. The core legal issues were whether the subsequent purchaser had locus standi to challenge the acquisition and whether the acquisition had indeed lapsed under Section 24(2). The appellants argued that the subsequent purchaser lacked locus, a point not addressed by the High Court, and cited precedents like Shiv Kumar v. Union of India and Delhi Development Authority v. Godfrey Philips (I) Ltd. They also contended that the Pune Municipal Corporation case was overruled by the Constitution Bench in Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal. The Supreme Court analyzed these arguments, noting that the subsequent purchaser claimed ownership based on documents like an agreement to sell but no sale deed was produced. The court referred to established jurisprudence holding that subsequent purchasers cannot claim lapse of acquisition. It further examined the interpretation of Section 24(2), emphasizing the Constitution Bench's ruling that lapse requires both non-possession and non-compensation, with 'or' read conjunctively, and that interim order periods are excluded. The court reasoned that the High Court erred in not considering the locus issue and in applying an overruled precedent. Consequently, the Supreme Court quashed the High Court's judgment, held there was no deemed lapse, dismissed the original writ petition, and allowed the appeal with no 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 High Court allowed a writ petition by a subsequent purchaser declaring acquisition lapsed under Section 24(2) - The Supreme Court held that a subsequent purchaser has no locus to challenge acquisition or claim lapse, relying on precedents including Shiv Kumar v. Union of India and Delhi Development Authority v. Godfrey Philips (I) Ltd. - The impugned judgment was quashed and the writ petition dismissed (Paras 3-5, 7). B) Land Acquisition Law - Deemed Lapse - Section 24(2) Interpretation - Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, Section 24(2) - The High Court relied on Pune Municipal Corporation v. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki, which was overruled by Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal - The Supreme Court applied the Constitution Bench ruling that deemed lapse requires both non-taking of possession and non-payment of compensation, with 'or' read as 'nor' or 'and', and excluded periods under interim orders - Held that acquisition did not lapse (Paras 2, 6-7).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the High Court erred in declaring the acquisition proceedings deemed to have lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, in a writ petition filed by a subsequent purchaser who lacks locus standi
Final Decision
Supreme Court quashed and set aside the impugned High Court judgment, held there is no deemed lapse of acquisition, dismissed the original writ petition, and allowed the appeal with no costs
Law Points
- Subsequent purchaser has no locus standi to claim lapse of acquisition proceedings under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition
- Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act
- 2013
- Deemed lapse under Section 24(2) requires both non-taking of possession and non-payment of compensation
- The period of subsistence of interim orders is excluded in computing five years for lapse
- The word 'or' in Section 24(2) is to be read as 'nor' or 'and'
- Deposit of compensation in court does not constitute payment under Section 24(2)
