In Civil Appeal No.3621 of 2023-SC- Top Court allows Delhi Govt’s appeal against order whereby subsequent purchaser’s writ petition invoking Sec.24(2) of Land Acquisition Act of 2013 after issuance of notification u/s 4 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894, was allowed
Justices Abhay S. Oka & Rajesh Bindal [18-05-2023]

Read Judgment: Government of NCT of Delhi v. Ravinder Kumar Jain & Ors

Tulip Kanth

New Delhi, May 22, 2023: Reiterating its settled law that a subsequent buyer of the property after issuance of the notification under Section 4 the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 Act has no locus to invoke Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, the Supreme Court has dismissed the petition of the subsequent purchaser who didn’t have the right to invoke jurisdiction of the High Court to claim that the acquisition in question had lapsed.

The Division Bench of Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Rajesh Bindal referred to the Apex Court’s judgment in Shiv Kumar and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. wherein it has been held that subsequent purchasers cannot be said to be landowners entitled to restoration of land and cannot be termed to be affected persons within the provisions of the 2013 Act. It is not open to them to claim that the proceedings have lapsed under Section 24(2).

The factual background of this case was that the process of acquisition of land in question started with the issuance of notification of Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Subsequently, notification under Section 6 but the owner of the land at that stage challenged the acquisition by filing a petition. Award under Section 11 of the 1894 Act was announced on June 5,1987 and the petition was dismissed for non-prosecution on December 9,2004.

The first respondent- Ravinder Kumar Jain had purchased the land in question vide a registered sale deed dated June 18, 2003. The fact that he had knowledge about the acquisition of land was evident from the fact that his counsel pointed out that he had obtained permission from the competent authority in terms of the provisions of the 1972 Act for transfer of the land, which had already been acquired. Though, a vague averment had been made in that regard in that sale deed, however, no such certificate was produced.

Secondly, the writ petition was filed by the first respondent challenging the acquisition proceedings and the same was dismissed as withdrawn in 2008 with liberty to the petitioner therein to avail of the remedy of review/ recall of the order dated December 9,2004 but this application for reviewing/ recalling was dismissed.

The petitioners approached the Top Court challenging the order passed by the Delhi High Court vide which the writ petition filed by the first respondent invoking Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 was allowed and it was held that the acquisition in question had lapsed for the reason that neither the possession of the land was taken nor the compensation therefor was paid.

It was the Govt’s stand that a subsequent buyer of the land after the process of acquisition is complete does not have any locus to invoke Section 24(2), to claim that the acquisition in question has lapsed. Reference was made to the judgment of the Top Court in.

On the issue of locus of a subsequent purchaser to invoke Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act to claim that the acquisition had lapsed, the Apex Court referred to its judgment in Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal and Others wherein it has been reiterated  that a subsequent buyer of the property after issuance of the notification under Section 4 the 1894 Act has no locus to invoke Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act.

Taking note of the admitted position  that notification under Section 4 of 1894 Act was issued on November 25, 1980 and the sale deed in favour of the first respondent was registered in the year 2003.

Reliance was placed upon the affidavit filed by the Land Acquisition Collector in the High Court that the first respondent purchased the land from Behl Brothers vide registered sale deed dated June 18,2003, who had purchased the same from M/s. Ansal Housing and Estates (P) Ltd. in 1981, which itself was after the issuance of notification under Section 4 of the 1894 Act on November 25, 1980.

“Hence, the respondent will not have right to invoke jurisdiction of the High Court to claim that the acquisition in question had lapsed in view of Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act”,the Bench held.

Thus, the Bench allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned order passed by the High Court while dismissing the writ petition filed in the High Court by the first respondent.