Summary
A subsequent purchaser of acquired land in Delhi persuaded the Delhi High Court that the acquisition had lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act, because compensation had not been paid or tendered. This was despite the State's case that possession had been taken on 17.09.2008 and the revenue records mutated. The Supreme Court set the judgment aside. Following DDA v. Godfrey Phillips, a subsequent purchaser cannot claim lapse under the 2013 Act. The High Court had also relied solely on Pune Municipal Corporation, which the Constitution Bench overruled in Indore Development Authority. Under that ruling, lapse requires that neither possession was taken nor compensation paid, so taking possession alone defeats lapse.
Issues
- Whether a subsequent purchaser can seek a declaration of lapse under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act, and whether lapse follows from non-payment of compensation where possession was taken.
Provisions considered
- Section 24(2), Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013Under Indore Development Authority, 'or' is read as 'nor': lapse occurs only where, owing to the authorities' inaction for five years or more, possession was not taken and compensation not paid; once possession is taken there is no lapse. (¶ 2.2)
- Section 16, Land Acquisition Act, 1894On possession being taken after the award, the land vests in the State and there is no divesting under Section 24(2). (¶ 2.2)
Held
- A subsequent purchaser is not entitled to claim lapse of acquisition proceedings under the 2013 Act (DDA v. Godfrey Phillips), and the High Court erred in entertaining the writ petition. (¶ 2.1)
- On merits too, the High Court relied solely on Pune Municipal Corporation, overruled by the Constitution Bench in Indore Development Authority; non-payment of compensation alone, where possession had been taken, does not cause lapse. (¶¶ 2, 2.2, 3)
Result
Civil Appeal No. 8931 of 2022 allowed; the Delhi High Court judgment dated 01.08.2017 in Writ Petition (C) No. 1202 of 2017 declaring the acquisition lapsed set aside; no costs.