Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 – s.24(2) –Writ petition was preferred by original writ petitioner-subsequent purchaser – High Court relying upon Pune Municipal Corporation & Anr. vs Harakchand Misrimal Solanki & Ors allowed the writ petition preferred by the respondent/original writ petitioners and held that the acquisition proceedings in respect of land in question is deemed to have lapsed u/s.24(2) of 2013 Act as compensation was not paid to the original landowners – On appeal, held : The subsequent purchaser has no locus to challenge the acquisition/lapse of acquisition – Thus, High Court committed an error in entertaining the writ petition preferred by the respondent no.1 – Also, applying the law laid by Supreme Court in Indore Development Authority, which has overruled the decision in Pune Municipal Corporation, to the facts of the instant case – Impugned judgment and order of the High Court unsustainable – Appeal allowed.
Indore Development Authority vs. Manoharlal & Ors. (2020) 8 SCC 129 : [2020] 3 SCR 1 – followed. Government (NCT of Delhi) vs. Manav Dharam Trust and Anr., (2017) 6 SCC 751– held not good law. Pune Municipal Corporation & Anr. vs. Harakchand Misrimal Solanki & ors (2014) 3 SCC 183 : [2014] 1 SCR 783; Shiv Kumar and Anr. vs. Union of India and Ors., (2019) 10 SCC 229; Delhi Development Authority vs. Godfrey Philips (I) Ltd. & Ors., (Civil Appeal No. 3073 of 2022 decided by the Supreme Court); Delhi Administration Thr. Secretary, Land and Building Department & Ors. vs. Pawan Kumar & Ors., (Civil Appeal No. 3646 of 2022 decided by the Supreme Court) – referred to.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.