Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013: s. 24(2) – Lapse of acquisition – On facts, the subject land was acquired in the year 2007 by drawing panchnama – Same land was sold to the respondent no. 1 in 2010 by the owner – Writ petition by the respondent-original writ petitioner seeking declaration that acquisition proceedings pertaining to subject land is deemed to have lapsed in view of s.24(2) on the ground that the compensation was not paid – High Court allowed the petition – On appeal, held: Subsequent purchaser had no locus to challenge the acquisition and/or lapsing of the acquisition under the Act, 2013 – High Court erred in entertaining the writ petition filed by the respondent no.1, subsequent purchaser who had acquired the right, title or interest in the land in question subsequent to the acquisition proceedings, subsequent to passing of the award – Even otherwise, on merits also and in light of the decision in the case of Indore Development Authority’s case, the decision of the High Court is unsustainable – Thus, the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court is quashed and set aside.
Indore Development Authority versus Manoharlal and others (2020) 8 SCC 129 : [2020] 3 SCR 1 – followed. Shiv Kumar & Anr. Vs. Union of India & Ors. (2019)
10 SCC 229; Delhi Administration Through Secretary, Land and Building vs. Pawan Kumar & Ors., Civil Appeal No.3646 of 2022; Delhi Development Authority versus Godfrey Phillips (I) Ltd. & Ors, Civil Appeal No. 3073 of 2022 – relied on.
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.