Right to far compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 – S.24(2) – High Court allowed the writ petition and declared that the acquisition with respect to the land in question is deemed to have lapsed by virtue of s.24(2) of the 2013 Act –Before the Supreme Court, the appellant-DDA contended that the original writ petitioner before the High Court was the subsequent purchaser, who admittedly purchased the property after the acquisition proceedings commenced and award was declared –Held: The respondent being a subsequent purchaser had no locus to pray for lapsing of the acquisition – Therefore, the impugned judgment of the High Court unsustainable –Accordingly, set aside – There shall not be any deemed lapse of acquisition proceedings with respect to the land in question.
Government (NCT of Delhi) Vs. Manav Dharam Trust and Anr., (2017) 6 SCC 751 : [2017] 4 SCR 232; 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) – 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.