Summary
Land in Maidan Garhi, Delhi, was notified for acquisition in 1980, and the acquisition was later upheld by the Supreme Court. In 2016 a person who claimed the land under an agreement to sell of that year obtained a Delhi High Court declaration that the acquisition had lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act. The Supreme Court set it aside on two grounds. First, an agreement to sell confers no title, and as a subsequent purchaser the writ petitioner could not claim lapse; the High Court had not even considered the challenge to her standing. Second, possession of some parcels could not be taken and compensation could not be deposited only because of pending litigation, and under Indore Development Authority that does not cause a lapse.
Issues
- Whether a person claiming under an agreement to sell executed long after the acquisition notification could seek a declaration that the acquisition had lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act.
- Whether the acquisition lapsed where possession could not be taken and compensation could not be deposited because of pending litigation.
Provisions considered
- Section 24(2), Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013A subsequent purchaser cannot claim lapse, and there is no lapse where possession could not be taken or compensation deposited owing to pending litigation. (¶¶ 7, 7.1, 7.2)
- Sections 4 and 6, Land Acquisition Act, 1894The notification and declaration in 1980 and 1985 preceded the writ petitioner's claimed interest by decades, making her a subsequent purchaser. (¶¶ 2.1, 7)
Held
- An agreement to sell by itself confers no right, title or interest; the writ petitioner, deriving her claimed interest in 2016 after the 1980 notification, was a subsequent purchaser with no right to claim lapse, and the High Court erred in not dealing with the plea on her locus. (¶¶ 7, 7.1)
- On merits too, the High Court erred, since the acquisition had been confirmed by this Court and possession of some parcels and deposit of compensation were prevented by pending litigation, which does not bring Section 24(2) into play. (¶ 7.2)
Result
Appeal allowed; the Delhi High Court judgment dated 25.07.2017 in W.P. (C) No. 11735 of 2016 set aside and the writ petition dismissed; no costs.