Summary
The Delhi High Court entertained a writ petition by a subsequent purchaser, overruling an objection to its maintainability on the strength of Manav Dharam Trust. It then declared that the acquisition had lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act, following Pune Municipal Corporation, because compensation had not been paid to the original landowners. The Supreme Court set the declaration aside on both counts. Manav Dharam Trust is no longer good law after Shiv Kumar and later decisions, which hold that a subsequent purchaser has no locus to challenge an acquisition or seek a declaration of its lapse. Pune Municipal Corporation had also been overruled in Indore Development Authority.
Issues
- Whether a subsequent purchaser has locus to seek a declaration that an acquisition has lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act, and whether the acquisition lapsed for non-payment of compensation to the original landowners.
Provisions considered
- Section 24(2), Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013The High Court's reliance on Pune Municipal Corporation was misplaced after Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal (2020) 8 SCC 129; and following Shiv Kumar v. Union of India (2019) 10 SCC 229, a subsequent purchaser cannot invoke the provision. (¶¶ 3, 4, 5)
Held
- Government (NCT of Delhi) v. Manav Dharam Trust is not good law in view of Shiv Kumar and the later decisions in Godfrey Philips and Pawan Kumar, which hold that a subsequent purchaser has no locus to challenge the acquisition or its lapse; the High Court gravely erred in entertaining the writ petition. (¶¶ 3, 4)
- In any event, the declaration of lapse rested on Pune Municipal Corporation, overruled by the Constitution Bench in Indore Development Authority, and is unsustainable. (¶¶ 4, 5)
Result
Civil Appeal No. 364 of 2023 allowed; the Delhi High Court judgment dated 04.01.2018 in W.P. (C) No. 9545 of 2015 quashed and set aside; no costs.