In CIVIL APPEAL No.360 of 2023-SC- Subsequent purchaser has no locus to challenge acquisition or its lapse, reiterates Apex Court
Justices M.R.Shah & C.T. Ravikumar [20-01-2023]

Read Judgment: Government of NCT of Delhi and Anr v. Manjeet Singh Anand and Anr 

LE Correspondent

New Delhi, January 23, 2023: In a case pertaining to the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, referring to its judgments in Shiv Kumar and Anr. Vs. Union of India and Ors., Delhi Development Authority Vs. Godfrey Philips (I) Ltd. & Ors., and Delhi Administration Thr. Secretary, Land and Building Department & Ors. Vs. Pawan Kumar & Ors., the Supreme Court has reaffirmed that the subsequent purchaser has no locus to challenge the acquisition / lapse of acquisition.

The Delhi Government had preferred the present appeal before the Division Bench of Justice M.R.Shah and Justice C.T. Ravikumar against the order of the Delhi High Court whereby the High Court had allowed the writ petition preferred by the respondent and declared that the acquisition proceedings initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 with regard to the land in question 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.

In this case, the land in question was acquired in the year 1964 and the notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was issued. Award was made in the year 1967. 

According to the Land Acquisition Collector (LAC), the physical possession of the land in question was taken in 1967 and the compensation was duly deposited with the Reference Court. Thereafter on the Act, 2013, coming into force, the respondent-original writ petitioner on the basis of some documents prayed for lapse of the acquisition under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013. 

Though a specific plea was raised before the High Court that the respondent-original writ petitioner had no locus to challenge the acquisition and the recorded owner was somebody else, the High Court had allowed the said writ petition.

The High Court had relied upon the decision of the Top Court in Pune Municipal Corporation and Anr. Vs. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki and Ors..

The Bench noted that  the decision of this Court in the case of Pune Municipal Corporation and Anr. (supra), which was relied upon by the High Court while deciding the case of Smt. Harbans Kaur Vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Ors., had been specifically overruled by the Constitution Bench of this Court in the case of Indore Development Authority Vs. Manoharlal and Ors..

According to the Bench, the High Court had  materially erred in entertaining the writ petition preferred by the respondent. 

“As held by this Court in the case of Shiv Kumar and Anr. Vs. Union of India and Ors., (2019) 10 SCC 229 [LQ/SC/2019/1563] and in the subsequent decisions in the case of Delhi Development Authority Vs. Godfrey Philips (I) Ltd. & Ors., - Civil Appeal No. 3073 of 2022 and Delhi Administration Thr. Secretary, Land and Building Department & Ors. Vs. Pawan Kumar & Ors., - Civil Appeal No. 3646 of 2022, the subsequent purchaser has no locus to challenge the acquisition / lapse of acquisition”, the Bench said.

Applying the law laid down by it in the Constitution Bench decision in Indore Development Authority (supra), the Bench noted that when the acquisition was of the year 1964 and the possession was taken over in the year 1967 by drawing the panchnama,which is held to be taking the possession in accordance with law, the impugned judgment passed by the High Court was unsustainable.

Thus, the appeal was allowed.