Summary
The Delhi High Court declared an acquisition lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act at the instance of a company that had purchased the land after the acquisition proceedings commenced and the award was declared, without deciding the objection to its locus raised in the counter affidavit. The Supreme Court allowed the appeals of the Delhi Development Authority and the Government of NCT of Delhi: under Shiv Kumar and Godfrey Phillips a subsequent purchaser has no locus to challenge the acquisition or to seek a declaration of lapse, it makes no difference that title was acquired by registered sale deed rather than a power of attorney, and Manav Dharam Trust, on which the High Court relied, has been held per incuriam.
Issues
- Whether a person who purchased land after the commencement of acquisition proceedings and declaration of the award has locus to seek a declaration that the acquisition has lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.
Provisions considered
- Section 24(2), Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013A subsequent purchaser cannot invoke the deemed-lapse provision; the High Court's declaration in favour of such a purchaser was unsustainable and no lapse of the acquisition was recognised. (¶¶ 1, 5, 6)
Held
- It is undisputed that the writ petitioner bought the land after the acquisition proceedings and the award; as held in Shiv Kumar and Godfrey Phillips, a subsequent purchaser has no locus to challenge the acquisition or to pray for lapse, the distinction sought on the basis that title here flowed from a registered sale deed rather than a general power of attorney is immaterial, and Manav Dharam Trust has been held per incuriam. The High Court ought to have dealt with the maintainability objection taken in the counter. (¶¶ 5, 5.1, 5.2, 5.3)
Result
Appeals allowed without costs; Delhi High Court judgment dated 20.07.2015 in WP (C) No. 910 of 2015 quashed and set aside; no deemed lapse of the acquisition proceedings in respect of the land; pending applications disposed of.