Case Note & Summary
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal filed by the Government of NCT of Delhi and another against the judgment of the Delhi High Court which had declared that the acquisition proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (Act, 1894) with respect to the subject land were deemed to have lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (Act, 2013). The High Court had passed this order in a writ petition filed by Mohd. Zubair, who was a subsequent purchaser of the land. The appellants raised two main objections before the High Court: first, that the writ petition was not maintainable as the petitioner was a subsequent purchaser and thus had no locus to challenge the acquisition; and second, that possession of the land had been taken on 16.07.2007, which was evidenced by a possession proceeding on the spot. Despite these objections, the High Court declared the acquisition lapsed solely on the ground that compensation had not been tendered to the writ petitioner. The Supreme Court, relying on its recent decision in Delhi Development Authority v. Godfrey Philips (I) Ltd. & Ors., held that a subsequent purchaser has no locus standi to challenge acquisition proceedings or claim lapsing under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013. The Court also applied the Constitution Bench decision in Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal and Ors., which clarified that deemed lapse under Section 24(2) occurs only when both possession has not been taken and compensation has not been paid for five years or more prior to the commencement of the 2013 Act. Since the appellants had taken possession on 16.07.2007, there could be no lapse. The Court further noted that the mode of taking possession under the 1894 Act is by drawing an inquest report/memorandum, and once possession is taken, the land vests in the State with no divesting under Section 24(2). Non-deposit of compensation does not result in lapse; the remedy is payment of compensation under the 2013 Act with interest. Consequently, the Supreme Court quashed and set aside the High Court's judgment and allowed the appeal, dismissing the writ petition.
Headnote
A) Land Acquisition - Locus Standi of Subsequent Purchaser - Challenge to Acquisition Proceedings - Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, Section 24(2) - The 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, overruling the High Court's contrary view. (Paras 2-2.1) B) Land Acquisition - Deemed Lapse under Section 24(2) - Conditions for Lapse - Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, Section 24(2) - The Court clarified that deemed lapse under Section 24(2) occurs only when both possession has not been taken and compensation has not been paid for five years or more prior to 1-1-2014. Where possession has been taken, there is no lapse even if compensation is not paid. (Paras 2.2, 366.3) C) Land Acquisition - Mode of Taking Possession - Vesting of Land - Land Acquisition Act, 1894, Section 16 - The mode of taking possession under the 1894 Act is by drawing an inquest report/memorandum. Once possession is taken, the land vests in the State and there is no divesting under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act. (Para 366.7) D) Land Acquisition - Deposit of Compensation - Effect of Non-Deposit - Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, Section 24(2) proviso - Non-deposit of compensation in court does not result in lapse of acquisition proceedings; the consequence is payment of compensation under the 2013 Act with interest. (Paras 366.4, 366.5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether a subsequent purchaser can challenge land acquisition proceedings and claim lapsing under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013; and whether the High Court correctly declared acquisition lapsed when possession was taken but compensation not tendered.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, quashed and set aside the impugned judgment and order of the High Court, and dismissed the writ petition. No costs.
Law Points
- Subsequent purchaser has no locus to challenge acquisition proceedings
- Deemed lapse under Section 24(2) requires both non-taking of possession and non-payment of compensation
- Possession taken by drawing inquest report/memorandum vests land in State
- Non-deposit of compensation does not result in lapse
