Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 – s.24(2) – Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – ss.4, 6 – High Court declared that the acquisition w.r.t the lands in question is deemed to have lapsed by virtue of s.24(2) – On appeal, held: Respondent-original writ petitioner claimed the right, title, or interest in the lands in question on the basis of the Agreement to Sell of year 2016 – Agreement to Sell by itself does not confer any right, title, or interest – Even the appellant doubted the genuineness of the transaction of the Agreement to Sell and a specific plea was taken on the locus of the original writ petitioner, however, the High Court did not deal with the said issue – Further, notification u/s.4, 1894 Act was issued in 1980 and the Agreement to Sell was of the year 2016– Thus, the original writ petitioner allegedly derived the interest in the lands in question much after the acquisition proceedings were initiated and therefore, can be said to be a subsequent purchaser – Subsequent purchaser has no right to claim lapse of acquisition proceedings– Thus, being a subsequent purchaser and/or having acquired the interest in the lands in question subsequently, the original writ petitioner did not have any right to claim lapse of acquisition proceedings u/s.24(2) – Furthermore, as held in Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal and Ors., there cannot be any lapse of acquisition u/s.24(2),2013 Act on the ground that possession was not taken and/or compensation was not deposited/tendered due to the pending litigations– Thus, on merits also, the High Court erred in declaring lapse of acquisition– Impugned judgment set asid– Writ petition filed before High Court is dismissed. Allowing the appeal, the Court
Held: 1.1 The respondent No.1–original writ petitioner filed the writ petition and claimed the right, title, or interest in the lands in question on the basis of the Agreement to Sell dated ORS.
22.05.2016. Agreement to Sell by itself does not confer any right, title, or interest. Even in the counter affidavit, the appellant doubted the genuineness of the transaction of the Agreement to Sell dated 22.05.2016. A specific plea was taken on behalf of the DDA on the locus of the original writ petitioner. However, the High Court has not at all dealt with and/or considered the issue with respect to the locus of the original writ petitioner. Even considering the fact that the Agreement to Sell was of the year 2016 and considering the fact that the notification under Section
4 of the Act, 1894 was issued on 25.11.1980, therefore, it is apparent that the original writ petitioner allegedly derived the interest in the lands in question much after the acquisition proceedings were initiated and therefore, the respondent No. 1 original writ petitioner can be said to be subsequent purchaser. Subsequent purchaser has no right to claim lapse of acquisition proceedings. Under the circumstances and even accepting the case on behalf of the original writ petitioner that she might have acquired some interest on the basis of the Agreement to Sell dated 22.05.2016, being a subsequent purchaser and/or having acquired the interest in the lands in question subsequently, she was not having any right to claim lapse of acquisition proceedings under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013. Under the circumstances, the High Court erred in entertaining the writ petition preferred by the respondent No.1 – original writ petitioner claiming lapse of acquisition proceedings under the Act, 2013. [Paras 7, 7.1][607-G-H; 608-A-F]
1.2 Even otherwise on merits also, the High Court has erred in declaring / ordering lapse of acquisition under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013. The High Court has not at all appreciated the fact that the large parcels of the lands were acquired, which were under the same notification/ different notifications. The acquisition proceedings under the Act, 1894 were the subject matter of litigations and the acquisition proceedings came to be confirmed by this Court. The possession of some parcels of the land could not be taken over because of the pending litigations and even the compensation could not be deposited due to pending litigations. Under the circumstances and as observed and held by this Court in the case of Indore Development Authority, there cannot be any lapse of acquisition under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013 on the ground of possession could not be taken over by the authority and/or the compensation could not be deposited/tendered due to the pending litigations. Under these circumstances also, the High Court has erred in allowing the writ petition and declaring that the acquisition with respect to the lands in question is deemed to have 8 lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013. The impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court is unsustainable both on facts as well as on law. The impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court is quashed and set aside. The writ petition before the High Court being Writ Petition (C) No.11735 of 2016 is dismissed. [Para 7.2, 8][608-F-H; 609A-B, C] Indore Development Authority Vs. Manoharlal and Ors. (2020) 8 SCC 129 : [2020] 3 SCR 1 – followed.
Delhi Development Authority Vs. Godfrey Phillips (I) Ltd. & Ors., Civil Appeal No. 3073 of 2022 – relied on.
Om Parkash Vs. Union of India and Ors., (2010) 4 SCC
17 : [2010] 2 SCR 447; Meera Sahni Vs. Lieutenant Governor of Delhi & Ors., (2008) 9 SCC 173, M. Venkatesh & Ors. Vs. Commissioner, Bangalore
Development Authority, (2015) 17 SCC 1 : [2015] 11 SCR 454; Shiv Kumar & Anr. Vs. Union of India & Ors., (2019) 10 SCC 229– 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.