Summary
Purchasers who acquired land after the acquisition notification sought a declaration of lapse under the 2013 land-acquisition legislation. The Court held that a transaction void against the State could not support that claim or restore title through subsequent legislation. It overruled Manav Dharam Trust, also finding possession had been taken and that the vendor’s own title documents were inadequate.
Issues
- Whether post-notification purchasers could claim lapse under section 24 of the 2013 Act.
- Whether the claimed possession and chain of documents supported relief.
Provisions considered
- Section 24, Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013The lapse provision did not confer standing or validate title in purchasers under transactions void against the State. (¶¶ 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 23, 25, 27)
- Section 11(4), Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013The express restriction on transactions after preliminary notification supported the legislative policy considered. (¶¶ 9, 25)
Held
- A purchaser after the section 4 notification acquires no title against the State enabling a challenge to acquisition or the taking of possession. The recognised limited claim based on the vendor’s compensation interest does not establish a right to restoration through lapse. (¶¶ 6, 7, 19, 20, 21)
- The 2013 Act did not validate such transactions or make those purchasers landowners entitled to restored land, rehabilitation or the higher compensation under the proviso to section 24(2). The proviso identified the beneficiaries specified in the original acquisition notification. (¶¶ 8, 17, 18, 19, 20, 22, 23)
- Manav Dharam Trust incorrectly distinguished the binding acquisition precedents and disregarded the statutory scheme. It was held per incuriam and overruled; no further larger-Bench reference was warranted in view of the existing binding decisions. (¶¶ 25, 26, 27)
- Possession had been taken in 2000; unauthorised re-entry or colony development could not create a right to lapse. Independently, the vendor’s agreement-to-sell, power-of-attorney and will documents had not conveyed title capable of supporting the purchasers’ derivative claim. (¶¶ 16, 24, 28)
Result
The appeal was dismissed and refusal of the requested lapse declaration left undisturbed. Manav Dharam Trust was overruled.