Summary
In 1980 land in Village Neb Sarai, South Delhi, recorded in the name of a company, was notified for the planned development of Delhi, and possession was taken in 2005. The writ petitioner claimed under an agreement to sell of 09.05.2005. Relying on Pune Municipal Corporation, the Delhi High Court declared the acquisition lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act because compensation had not been paid. The Supreme Court reversed. Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal overruled Pune Municipal Corporation and holds that there is no lapse once possession has been taken. An agreement to sell confers no title, and a subsequent purchaser cannot claim lapse.
Issues
- Whether acquisition of land in Village Neb Sarai, possession of which was taken in 2005, lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act for non-payment of compensation, and whether a claimant under a 2005 agreement to sell could seek that declaration.
Provisions considered
- Section 24(2), Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013Following Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal, there is no deemed lapse where possession has been taken, even if compensation was not paid. (¶¶ 3, 3.1)
- Section 4, Land Acquisition Act, 1894Notification issued on 25.11.1980 for planned development of Delhi covering land in 13 South Delhi villages. (¶ 4)
Held
- The High Court's reliance on Pune Municipal Corporation was misplaced, that decision having been overruled by the Constitution Bench in Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal; possession having been taken in 2005, there was no lapse under Section 24(2). (¶¶ 3, 3.1)
- The recorded owner was a company, and the writ petitioner claimed only under an agreement to sell of 09.05.2005, which confers no right, title or interest; as a subsequent purchaser she could not claim lapse, following Godfrey Phillips, Meera Sahni, M. Venkatesh and Shiv Kumar, and the High Court erred in entertaining the writ petition. (¶¶ 4, 4.1, 4.2)
Result
Civil Appeal No. 8088 of 2022 allowed; the Delhi High Court's judgment dated 08.08.2017 set aside and Writ Petition (C) No. 2987 of 2016 dismissed; no costs.