Case Note & Summary
The dispute arose from a land acquisition case involving the Delhi Development Authority and a subsequent purchaser of a portion of the land. The High Court of Delhi had allowed a writ petition filed by the respondent, declaring that the acquisition of land was deemed to have lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, on the grounds of non-payment of compensation. The Supreme Court noted that the land in question was acquired through a notification dated 17.06.2005, with the award declared on 31.05.2007. The respondent, who purchased the land after the acquisition proceedings, claimed that the acquisition lapsed due to the non-payment of compensation. The appellant contended that possession was taken on 15.12.2007, and the respondent had no locus to challenge the acquisition. The Supreme Court referred to precedents, including Shiv Kumar & Anr. Vs. Union of India & Ors. and Indore Development Authority versus Manoharlal, emphasizing that a subsequent purchaser cannot challenge the acquisition. The Court concluded that the High Court erred in its judgment, as the acquisition was not deemed to have lapsed due to the possession being taken. Consequently, the Supreme Court quashed the High Court's order and dismissed the writ petition filed by the respondent.
Headnote
A) Land Acquisition - Lapse of Acquisition - Deemed lapse of acquisition proceedings - Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, Section 24(2) - The High Court declared the acquisition lapsed due to non-payment of compensation; however, the Supreme Court held that possession was taken and thus, there was no lapse under Section 24(2) (Paras 1-3).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the acquisition of land is deemed to have lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, quashed the High Court's order declaring the acquisition lapsed, and dismissed the writ petition filed by the respondent.
Law Points
- Land acquisition
- lapse of acquisition
- compensation
- locus standi
- Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition
- Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act
- 2013
