Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 – s.24(2) – High Court allowing the writ petition filed by respondent No.1, a subsequent purchaser declared that the acquisition w.r.t the land in question is deemed to have lapsed by virtue of s.24(2) – Whether the subsequent purchaser has locus to challenge the acquisition/lapsing of the acquisition – Held: No – Thus, the High Court erred in entertaining the writ petition preferred by the respondent No.1 being a subsequent purchaser and particularly when the original owners/recorded owners did not challenge the acquisition at all – There shall not be any deemed lapse of the acquisition proceedings w.r.t the land in question – Impugned judgment is quashed and set aside.
Shiv Kumar & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors., (2019) 10 SCC 229; Delhi Development Authority v. Godfrey Phillips (I) Ltd. & Ors., Civil Appeal No. 3073 of 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.