Case Note & Summary
The case involves an appeal by the Government of NCT of Delhi against an order of the High Court of Delhi allowing a writ petition filed by the respondent no.1 under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. The High Court had held that the acquisition of land had lapsed because neither possession was taken nor compensation paid. The appellant argued that the original owner had challenged the acquisition in W.P.(C) No.1229 of 1986, which was dismissed for non-prosecution on 09.12.2004. The respondent no.1 purchased the land from the original owner via a sale deed dated 18.06.2023, after obtaining a no objection certificate under Section 8 of the Delhi Lands (Restrictions on Transfer) Act, 1972. The respondent no.1 also filed a writ petition (W.P.(C) No.3701 of 2008) challenging the acquisition, which was dismissed on 22.10.2008, leaving it open to seek review/recall of the 2004 order, but that application was also dismissed. The appellant relied on the Supreme Court's judgment in Shiv Kumar and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. (2019) 10 SCC 229 to argue that a subsequent buyer after the acquisition process is complete has no locus to invoke Section 24(2). The respondent no.1 contended that compensation was not paid and possession not taken, and that he had constructed a house on the land and lived there for over a decade. The Supreme Court, after hearing both sides, allowed the appeal, holding that the subsequent purchaser does not have locus standi to invoke Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act, as the acquisition had already attained finality. The order of the High Court was set aside.
Headnote
A) Land Acquisition - Locus Standi - Subsequent Purchaser - Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 - A person who purchases land after the acquisition process is complete does not have locus standi to invoke Section 24(2) to claim lapse of acquisition - The Supreme Court held that the subsequent purchaser cannot challenge the acquisition or claim lapse as the acquisition had already attained finality - The appeal was allowed, setting aside the High Court order (Paras 1-3).
Issue of Consideration
Whether a subsequent purchaser of land, after the acquisition process is complete, has locus standi to invoke Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 to claim that the acquisition has lapsed.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court order, and dismissed the writ petition filed by the respondent no.1.
Law Points
- Locus standi of subsequent purchaser
- Lapse of acquisition under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition
- Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act
- 2013
- Effect of dismissal of writ petition challenging acquisition
