Summary
Subsequent purchasers, who held no title at the time of the award, obtained a Delhi High Court declaration that an acquisition had lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act because possession had not been taken and compensation had not been paid. The High Court did not consider their locus. It also relied on Pune Municipal Corporation, although possession had not been taken only because the original owners' challenge to the acquisition went up to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court set the declaration aside and dismissed the writ petition. Under Shiv Kumar and the decisions following it, subsequent purchasers have no locus. Under Indore Development Authority, a period of litigation initiated by landowners is excluded, and they cannot benefit from the non-possession it caused.
Issues
- Whether subsequent purchasers can seek a declaration of lapse under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act, and whether non-taking of possession due to litigation by the original owners can found lapse.
Provisions considered
- Section 24(2), Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013Following Shiv Kumar v. Union of India (2019) 10 SCC 229, subsequent purchasers lack locus; and under Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal (2020) 8 SCC 129, periods covered by litigation and stay are excluded. (¶¶ 2.1, 2.2, 2.3)
Held
- The question of locus of subsequent purchasers is not res integra after Shiv Kumar, followed in Pawan Kumar and Godfrey Phillips, and the High Court erred in entertaining their writ petition without considering it. (¶¶ 2, 2.1)
- Where the acquiring body could not take possession because of litigation by the landowners challenging the acquisition, the landowners cannot take advantage of the resulting non-possession to claim lapse; and the High Court's reliance on the overruled Pune Municipal Corporation was misplaced. (¶¶ 2.2, 2.3, 3)
Result
Civil Appeal No. 280 of 2023 allowed; the Delhi High Court judgment dated 17.07.2017 in W.P. (C) No. 2989 of 2016 set aside and the writ petition dismissed; no costs.