Subsequent Purchaser Has No Right to Claim Lapse of Land Acquisition Proceedings U/s 24 RFCTLARR : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court reiterated that a subsequent purchaser has no right to claim lapse of acquisition proceedings.

In this case, the land in question was notified to be acquired under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 on 25.11.1980; declaration under Section 6 was issued on 07.06.1985; and award came to be declared by the Collector on 17.06.1987. Before the High Court, the writ petitioner claimed the right, title, or interest in the lands in question on the basis of the Agreement to Sell dated 22.05.2016 and challenged the acquisition. The said writ petition was allowed by the High Court.

In appeal, the Apex Court bench noted that the High Court has not at all dealt with and/or considered the issue with respect to the locus of the writ petitioner. Referring to recent judgment in Delhi Development Authority v. Godfrey Phillips (I) Ltd. And Ors 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 476, the bench of Justices MR Shah and MM Sundresh said:

"In the recent decision of this Court in the case of Godfrey Phillips (I) Ltd. & Ors. (supra) after considering the other decisions on the right of the subsequent purchaser to claim lapse of acquisition proceedings, i.e., Meera Sahni Vs. Lieutenant Governor of Delhi & Ors., (2008) 9 SCC 173 and M. Venkatesh & Ors. Vs. Commissioner, Bangalore Development Authority, (2015) 17 SCC 1, it is specifically observed and held that subsequent purchaser has no right to claim lapse of acquisition proceedings. Similar view has been expressed by the Larger Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Shiv Kumar & Anr. Vs. Union of India & Ors., (2019) 10 SCC 229."

The court noted that, in the instant case, the possession of some parcels of the land could not be taken over because of the pending litigations and even the compensation could not be deposited due to pending litigation.

"Under the circumstances and as observed and held by this Court in the case of Indore Development Authority (supra), there cannot be any lapse of acquisition under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013 on the ground of possession could not be taken over by the authority and/or the compensation could not be deposited / tendered due to the pending litigations.", the bench added while allowing the appeal.

Case details

Delhi Development Authority  vs Damini Wadhwa | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 913 | CA 7962 OF 2022 | 4 November 2022 | Justices MR Shah and MM Sundresh

Headnotes

Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 ; Section 24(2) - Subsequent purchaser has no right to claim lapse of acquisition proceedings - Referred to Delhi Development Authority v. Godfrey Phillips (I) Ltd.  2022 LiveLaw (SC) 476. (Para 7)

Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 ; Section 24(2) - There cannot be any lapse of acquisition under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013 on the ground of possession could not be taken over by the authority and/or the compensation could not be deposited / tendered due to the pending litigations - Referred to Indore Development Authority Vs. Manoharlal (2020) 8 SCC 129. (Para 7.2)

Transfer of Property Act, 1882 - Agreement to Sell - Agreement to Sell by itself does not confer any right, title, or interest. (Para 7)

Click here to Read/Download Judgment