Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013: s.24(2) – Writ petition by subsequent purchaser to claim lapsing of the acquisition proceedings under s.24(2) of the Act, 2013 – Maintainability of – Held: In the case of Godfrey Philips (I) Ltd. & Ors., it was held that the subsequent purchaser is not entitled to claim lapsing of the proceedings under the Act, 2013 – In that view of the matter, the original writ petitioner-subsequent purchaser had no locus to file the writ petition to claim lapsing of the acquisition proceedings under s.24(2) of the Act, 2013.
Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013: s.24(2) – Land Acquisition – Possession taken on 26.11.2012 and handed over to DDA – High Court declared that the land acquisition with respect to the land in question is deemed to have lapsed solely on the ground that the compensation in respect of entire area was not paid to the original writ petitioner (subsequent purchaser) – Held: The impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court is unsustainable in view of the Constitution Bench decision of this Court in the case of Indore Development Authority Vs. Manoharlal and Ors. – In the said decision, it is observed and held that for lapsing of the acquisition under s.24(2) of the Act, 2013, twin conditions, of not taking over the possession and not paying/tendering the compensation, are required to be satisfied and that if one of the conditions is not satisfied, there shall not be deemed lapse of the acquisition proceedings under s.24(2) of the Act, 2013 – In view of the fact that the possession was taken, acquisition proceedings is not deemed to be lapsed.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: In the case of Godfrey Philips (I) Ltd. & Ors., it is observed and held that the subsequent purchaser is not entitled to claim lapsing of the proceedings under the Act, 2013. In that view of the matter, the original writ petitioner – subsequent purchaser had no locus to file the writ petition to claim lapsing of the acquisition proceedings under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013. Even otherwise, on merits also, the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court is unsustainable in view of the Constitution Bench decision of this Court in the case of Indore Development Authority Vs. Manoharlal and Ors.. In the said decision, it is observed and held that for lapsing of the acquisition under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013, twin conditions, of not taking over the possession and not paying / tendering the compensation, are required to be satisfied. In the said decision, it is further observed and held that if one of the conditions is not satisfied, there shall not be deemed lapse of the acquisition proceedings under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013. [Paras 3.2, 3.3][832-B-E] Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal and Ors. (2020) 8 SCC 129 : [2020] 3 SCR 1 – followed.
Delhi Development Authority v. Godfrey Philips (I) Ltd. & Ors. Civil Appeal No. 3073 of 2022 – relied on.
Government (NCT of Delhi) v. Manav Dharam Trust and Anr. (2017) 6 SCC 751 : [2017] 4 SCR 232; Delhi Administration Thr. Secretary, Land and Building Department & Ors. v. Pawan Kumar & Ors. Civil
Appeal No. 3646 of 2022 – 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.