Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 – s.24(2) – Locus of a subsequent purchaser to invoke s.24(2) to claim lapse of acquisition – Writ petition filed by the respondent no.1 invoking s.24(2) was allowed, acquisition in question was held to have lapsed – Correctness of – Held: A subsequent buyer of the property after issuance of the notification u/s.4 of the 1894 Act has no locus to invoke s.24(2) of the 2013 Act – In the present case, notification u/s.4 of 1894 Act was issued on 25.11.1980 and the sale deed in favour of the respondent no.1 was registered on 18.6.2003 – Rather it is evident from the affidavit filed by the Land Acquisition Collector in the High Court that the respondent no.1 purchased the land from one ‘BB’ who had purchased the same vide sale deed dated 09.06.1981, which itself was after the issuance of notification u/s.4 of the 1894 Act on 25.11.1980 – Hence, the respondent did not have right to invoke jurisdiction of the High Court to claim that the acquisition in question had lapsed in view of s.24(2) of the 2013 Act – Impugned order passed by High Court set aside – Writ petition filed by the respondent No.1 dismissed – Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – s.4 – Delhi Lands (Restrictions on Transfer) Act, 1972 – s.8 – Land Acquisition.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 The process of acquisition of land in question started with the issuance of notification of Section 4 of the 1894 Act on 25.11.1980. Subsequently, notification under Section 6 was issued on 27.05.1985. The owner of the land at that stage challenged the acquisition by filing W.P.(C) No.1229 of 1986. Award under Section 11 of the 1894 Act was announced by the Land Acquisition Collector on 05.06.1987. The writ petition was dismissed for non-prosecution on 09.12.2004. The High Court also recorded that the issue raised in the petition is otherwise also covered by various judgments. The respondent no.1 had purchased the land in question vide registered sale deed dated 18.06.2003. The fact that he had knowledge about the acquisition of land, is evident from two facts. Firstly, that it was sought to be pointed out by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent no. 1 that he had obtained permission from the competent authority in terms of the provisions of the 1972 Act for transfer of the land, which had already been acquired. Though, in para 13 of the sale deed a vague averment has been made in that regard, however, no such certificate was produced. Even production thereof may not be of any help to the respondent no.
1. Secondly, the writ petition was filed by the respondent no. 1 bearing W.P.(C) No.3701 of 2008 challenging the acquisition proceedings. The same was dismissed as withdrawn on 22.10.2008 with liberty to the petitioner therein to avail of the remedy of review/ recall of the order dated 09.12.2004 vide which the writ petition filed by the predecessor in interest of the respondent no.1, challenging the acquisition, was dismissed for nonprosecution. It is the admitted position that an application filed by the respondent No.1 for reviewing/ recalling was dismissed. [Paras 5, 6][314-G-H; 315-A-E]
1.2 A subsequent buyer of the property after issuance of the notification under Section 4 the 1894 Act has no locus to invoke Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act. In the case in hand it is the admitted position on record that notification under Section 4 of 1894 Act was issued on 25.11.1980 and the sale deed in favour of the respondent no. 1 was registered on 18.6.2003. Rather it is evident from the affidavit filed by the Land Acquisition Collector in the High Court that the respondent no.1 purchased the land from ‘BB’ vide registered sale deed dated 18.06.2003, who had purchased the same from M/s. Ansal Housing and Estates (P) Ltd. vide sale deed dated 09.06.1981, which itself was after the issuance of notification under Section 4 of the 1894 Act on 25.11.1980. Hence, the respondent will not have right to invoke jurisdiction of the High Court to claim that the acquisition in question had lapsed in view of Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act. The impugned order passed by the High Court is set aside and the writ petition filed by the respondent No.1 in the High Court is dismissed. [Paras 9-11][320-H; 321-A, D-E]
Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal and Others 2020 SCC OnLine SC 316 – followed.
Shiv Kumar and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. 2019
(10) SCC 229 – relied on.
State (NCT of Delhi) v. Manav Dharma Trust (2017) 6 SCC 751 : [2017] 4 SCR 232 – 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.