In CIVIL APPEAL No. 1522 of 2023-SC- Subsequent purchaser has no locus to challenge acquisition/lapsing of acquisition, reiterates Apex Court
Justices M.R.Shah & C.T. Ravikumar [13-03-2023]

Read Order: Government of NCT of Delhi and Anr v. M/s. Beads Properties Pvt. Ltd. & Ors 

Tulip Kanth

New Delhi, March 14, 2023: The Supreme Court has allowed an appeal against an order of the Delhi High Court whereby it was declared that the acquisition with respect to the land in question was deemed to have lapsed by virtue of Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.

It was the specific case on behalf of the appellants / Land Acquisition collector that since the recorded / original owners never challenged the acquisition proceedings, the original writ petitioner had no right to challenge the same. 

As per the averments in the writ petition and even according to the original writ petitioner, the original writ petitioner purchased the land in question after the notification under Section 4 was issued. 

The Division Bench of Justice M.R.Shah and Justice C.T. Ravikumar noted that the notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was issued on November 25, 1980 and the declaration under Section 6 of the Act was made on June 7, 1985 and the award under Section 11 of the Act, 1894 was published on July 9, 1987.

The original writ petitioner purchased the lands thereafter, i.e., in the year 1990 and the appellant had contended before the High Court that the original writ petitioner being the subsequent purchaser had no locus to challenge the acquisition / lapsing of the acquisition. 

The Top Court referred to the judgments in Shiv Kumar & Anr. Vs. Union of India & Ors., and Delhi Development Authority Vs. Godfrey Phillips (I) Ltd. & Ors., and said, “In the aforesaid decisions and the other subsequent decisions, it is specifically observed and held that the subsequent purchaser has no locus to challenge the acquisition / lapsing of the acquisition. Under the circumstances, the High Court has erred in entertaining the writ petition preferred by the respondent No.1 herein – original writ petitioner being a subsequent purchaser and particularly when the original owners / recorded owners did not challenge the acquisition at all.”

Thus, the impugned judgment of the High Court was quashed and the Bench held that there should not be any deemed lapse of the acquisition proceedings with respect to the land in question.