Summary
The Court allowed the Government’s appeal and dismissed a purchaser’s writ seeking lapse of acquisition under Section 24(2) of the 2013 land-acquisition statute. The purchaser and his immediate predecessor acquired their interests after the Section 4 notification. Applying Shiv Kumar and the Constitution Bench decision in Indore Development Authority, the Court held that such a purchaser lacked standing to seek restoration through a declaration of lapse.
Issues
- Whether a purchaser after the Section 4 acquisition notification could invoke Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act.
- Whether the claimed transfer permission or residential occupation overcame that lack of standing.
Provisions considered
- Section 24(2) and its proviso, Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013A post-notification purchaser cannot seek a declaration that acquisition has lapsed so as to recover the land. The provision does not validate a transaction ineffective against the State or confer that standing. (¶¶ 7, 8, 9, 10, 11)
Held
- Following Shiv Kumar, a purchaser after the Section 4 notification cannot invoke Section 24 to obtain the land back. A sale ineffective against the State does not supply the title required for such a lapse claim; the 2013 Act confers no new right on that basis. The contrary Manav Dharma Trust view had already been displaced, and Indore Development Authority reiterated the rule. (¶¶ 7, 8, 9)
- The acquisition notification preceded both the respondent’s purchase and the transfer to his immediate predecessor. The respondent also knew of the acquisition and had unsuccessfully pursued an earlier challenge and recall proceedings. His asserted transfer permission was not produced; the Court observed that production would not assist him in this claim. (¶¶ 5, 6, 10)
- The High Court’s lapse declaration could not stand at the instance of a purchaser lacking locus. The State’s appeal was allowed, the High Court order set aside and the respondent’s writ dismissed. The decision rested on standing rather than a fresh determination of whether possession or compensation requirements had been fulfilled. (¶¶ 1, 7, 9, 10, 11)
Result
Government appeal allowed; High Court’s lapse declaration set aside and respondent no. 1’s writ petition dismissed for lack of standing as a post-notification purchaser.