Case Note & Summary
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal filed by the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) against the judgment of the Delhi High Court, which had declared that the acquisition of land in question had lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (Act, 2013). The dispute arose from a writ petition filed by Dayanand, a subsequent purchaser of the acquired land, seeking a declaration that the acquisition proceedings initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 had lapsed. The High Court allowed the petition, holding that compensation had not been paid to the petitioner, and relied on the decision in Government (NCT of Delhi) v. Manav Dharam Trust (2017) to overrule the objection regarding the petitioner's locus. The DDA appealed to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court noted that the possession of the subject land had been taken on 26.11.2012 and handed over to the DDA. The Court held that the subsequent purchaser had no locus to challenge the acquisition proceedings, as per the later decisions in Delhi Development Authority v. Godfrey Philips (I) Ltd. (2022) and Delhi Administration v. Pawan Kumar (2022), which overruled the Manav Dharam Trust case on this point. On merits, the Court applied the Constitution Bench decision in Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal (2020), which clarified that for a deemed lapse under Section 24(2), both conditions of non-taking of possession and non-payment of compensation must be satisfied. Since possession had been taken, the acquisition did not lapse even if compensation was not paid. The Court quashed the High Court's order and dismissed the writ petition, but directed that if compensation is not paid to the recorded owner, they may claim it in accordance with law.
Headnote
A) Land Acquisition - Locus Standi - Subsequent Purchaser - Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, Section 24(2) - A subsequent purchaser of acquired land has no locus to file a writ petition claiming deemed lapse of acquisition proceedings under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act, as held in Delhi Development Authority v. Godfrey Philips (I) Ltd. (2022) and Delhi Administration v. Pawan Kumar (2022). The High Court's reliance on Government (NCT of Delhi) v. Manav Dharam Trust (2017) was overruled. (Paras 3.1-3.2) B) Land Acquisition - Deemed Lapse - Twin Conditions - Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, Section 24(2) - For acquisition proceedings to be deemed lapsed under Section 24(2), both conditions of non-taking of possession and non-payment of compensation must be satisfied. If one condition is not met, there is no lapse. The word 'or' in Section 24(2) is read as 'nor' or 'and'. Possession having been taken on 26.11.2012, the acquisition did not lapse despite non-payment of compensation. (Paras 3.3, 366.3) C) Land Acquisition - Compensation - Payment - Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, Section 24(2) - The expression 'paid' in Section 24(2) does not include deposit in court. Non-deposit of compensation does not result in lapse. However, if compensation is not paid to the recorded owner, they may claim it in accordance with law. (Paras 366.4, 4)
Issue of Consideration
Whether a subsequent purchaser can maintain a writ petition to claim lapsing of acquisition proceedings under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, and whether the acquisition lapses when possession has been taken but compensation has not been paid.
Final Decision
Appeal allowed. Impugned High Court judgment quashed and set aside. Original writ petition dismissed. Directed that if compensation is not paid to recorded owner, it may be claimed in accordance with law. No costs.
Law Points
- Subsequent purchaser has no locus to challenge acquisition 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
- Word 'or' in Section 24(2) is read as 'nor' or 'and'
- Possession taken but compensation not paid does not result in lapse
