Summary
Land in village Mundaka was notified in 2005, and the award was declared in 2007. Possession was taken by panchnama on 15.12.2007. In 2010 the writ petitioner acquired 275 square yards through a GPA, will, agreement to sell and receipt. The Delhi High Court nevertheless declared the acquisition lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act for non-payment of compensation. The Supreme Court set the declaration aside and dismissed the writ petition. Under Shiv Kumar, Pawan Kumar and Godfrey Phillips, a person who acquires an interest after the acquisition and award has no locus to challenge the acquisition or seek its lapse. On the merits too, under Indore Development Authority there was no lapse because possession had been taken.
Issues
- Whether a subsequent purchaser who acquired an interest after the acquisition and award has locus to seek a declaration of lapse under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act, and whether the acquisition lapsed where possession was taken in 2007.
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, a subsequent purchaser cannot invoke the provision; and under Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal (2020) 8 SCC 129, possession taken by panchnama precludes lapse. (¶¶ 2.3, 2.6, 2.7)
- Sections 4 and 6, Land Acquisition Act, 1894The notification of 17.06.2005 and declaration of 31.05.2006 preceded the award of 31.05.2007 and the writ petitioner's acquisition of interest in 2010. (¶ 2)
Held
- The writ petitioner, having acquired his interest by GPA, will and agreement to sell in 2010, after the acquisition and the award, is a subsequent purchaser with no locus to challenge the acquisition or its lapse, and the High Court seriously erred in entertaining his writ petition. (¶¶ 2, 2.2, 2.3)
- Even on merits, since possession was taken on 15.12.2007 by drawing a panchnama, the declaration of lapse is unsustainable under Indore Development Authority. (¶¶ 2.4, 2.5, 2.7)
Result
Civil Appeal No. 9287 of 2022 allowed; the Delhi High Court judgment dated 01.11.2018 in W.P. (C) No. 3986 of 2018 quashed and set aside and the writ petition dismissed; no costs.