Summary
A company that purchased land in 1990, after the Section 4 notification of 1980, the Section 6 declaration of 1985 and the award of 1987 under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, obtained from the Delhi High Court a declaration that the acquisition had lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act, although the recorded owners had never challenged the acquisition and the Land Acquisition Collector had objected that a subsequent purchaser has no locus, a point the High Court did not address. The Supreme Court allowed the Government's appeal: under Shiv Kumar and Godfrey Phillips a subsequent purchaser has no locus to challenge the acquisition or claim its lapse, particularly where the original owners never challenged it, so the writ petition should not have been entertained.
Issues
- Whether a purchaser who acquired land after the notification, declaration and award under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 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, when the recorded owners never challenged the acquisition.
Provisions considered
- Section 24(2), Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013The deemed lapse provision cannot be invoked by a subsequent purchaser, who has no locus to challenge the acquisition or its lapsing. (¶¶ 2.2, 2.3, 3)
- Sections 4, 6 and 11, Land Acquisition Act, 1894The notification, declaration and award of 1980, 1985 and 1987 preceded the writ petitioner's purchase in 1990, making it a subsequent purchaser with no right to challenge the completed acquisition. (¶¶ 2, 2.1)
Held
- The Collector's counter affidavit named the recorded owners, who never challenged the acquisition, and the writ petition itself showed the purchase was made in 1990 after the award; the question of a subsequent purchaser's locus is no longer res integra after Shiv Kumar and Godfrey Phillips, and the High Court erred in entertaining and allowing the petition without adverting to that objection. (¶¶ 2, 2.1, 2.2, 2.3)
Result
Appeal allowed with no order as to costs; Delhi High Court judgment dated 24.08.2015 in W.P.(C) No. 6963 of 2014 quashed and set aside; no deemed lapse of the acquisition proceedings in respect of the land in question; pending applications disposed of.