Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013: s. 24(2) – Land acquisition, when deemed to have lapsed – Writ petition by the respondent-original writ petitioners, being subsequent purchasers seeking declaration that acquisition proceedings pertaining to subject land is deemed to have lapsed in view of s.24(2) – High Court allowed the writ petition – Sustainability of – Held: Not sustainable – Subsequent purchaser has no locus to challenge the acquisition and/or lapsing of the acquisition under the Act of 2013 – Original writ petitioner was not the recorded owner at the time when the award in the year 1987 – Original writ petitioner is a subsequent purchaser who has acquired the right, title or interest in the land in the year 2018 – Thus, the order passed by the High Court is quashed and set aside – Land Acquisition Act, 1894. 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, Delhi Administration Thr. Secretary, Land and Building Department & Ors. Vs. Pawan Kumar & Ors., - Civil Appeal No. 3646 of 2022 – relied on.
Government (NCT of Delhi) vs. Manav Dharam Trust and Anr. (2017) 6 SCC 751 – 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.