Summary
A subsequent purchaser of acquired land in Delhi persuaded the Delhi High Court to declare the acquisition lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act. The ground was that compensation for the whole area had not been paid, even though the Land Acquisition Collector and the DDA showed that possession was taken and handed over to the DDA on 26 November 2012. The High Court had relied on Manav Dharam Trust to uphold his standing. The Supreme Court reversed this on two grounds. Under DDA v. Godfrey Phillips, a subsequent purchaser cannot claim lapse. On the merits, Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal requires both non-possession and non-payment for a lapse. It observed that any unpaid compensation is to be paid to the recorded owner or person entitled when claimed.
Issues
- Whether a subsequent purchaser has locus to seek a declaration of lapse under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act.
- Whether an acquisition lapses where possession was taken in 2012 but compensation for the whole area had not been paid.
Provisions considered
- Section 24(2), Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013Under Godfrey Phillips (followed in Pawan Kumar) a subsequent purchaser cannot claim lapse; and under paragraph 366 of Indore Development Authority both non-possession and non-payment are required. (¶¶ 3.1, 3.2, 3.3)
Held
- Following DDA v. Godfrey Phillips (I) Ltd., followed in Delhi Administration v. Pawan Kumar, a subsequent purchaser is not entitled to claim lapsing of the acquisition, so the writ petitioner had no locus and the High Court's reliance on Manav Dharam Trust was misplaced. (¶¶ 3, 3.1, 3.2)
- Even on merits, possession having been taken on 26.11.2012 and handed over to the DDA, non-payment of compensation alone could not cause a deemed lapse under Indore Development Authority; compensation, if unpaid, is to be paid in accordance with law to the recorded owner or person entitled under the 1894 Act on application. (¶¶ 3, 3.3, 4)
Result
Civil Appeal No. 9005 of 2022 allowed without costs; the Delhi High Court judgment dated 19.03.2018 in Writ Petition (C) No. 3357 of 2016 set aside and the writ petition dismissed, with liberty to the recorded owner or person entitled to claim compensation in accordance with law.