Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 – s.24(2) – High Court declared that the land in question deemed to have lapsed u/s. 24(2) of the 2013 Act – It was the case on behalf of the LAC that possession of the land was taken over and the original writ petitioners are not the recorded owners, they were subsequent purchasers – However, High Court allowed the writ petition relying on the case of Govt. of NCT of Delhi v. Manav Dharma Trust – On appeal, held: The decision in the case of Manav Dharma Trust was held to be not a good law in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Shiv Kumar & Anr. V. Union of India & Ors. and Delhi Development Authority v. Godfrey Philips (I) Ltd. & Ors. – In both the said cases, it was specifically held that the subsequent purchaser has no locus to challenge the acquisition and/or pay for deemed lapse of acquisition – Impugned Judgment and order of the High Court unsustainable.
Govt. of NCT of Delhi v. Manav Dharma Trust (2017) 6 SCC 751 : [2017] 4 SCR 232 – referred to.
Shiv Kumar & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors. (2019) 10 SCC 229; Delhi Development Authority v. Godfrey Philips (I) Ltd. & Ors. Civil Appeal No. 3073/2022 – 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.