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 respondents-subsequent purchasers declared that the acquisition w.r.t the land in question is deemed to have lapsed by virtue of s.24(2) – Objection as to the locus of the subsequent purchasers to challenge the acquisition/lapsing of the acquisition – Held: A subsequent purchaser has no locus to challenge the acquisition/lapsing of the acquisition – High Court erred in entertaining the writ petition preferred by the respondents praying for lapsing of the acquisition – 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 : 2019 (13) SCALE 698; Delhi Development Authority v. Godfrey Phillips (I) Ltd. & Ors. (2022) 8 SCC 771; Delhi Administration Thr. Secretary, Land and Building Department & Ors. v. Pawan Kumar & Ors. (2022) 7 SCC 470 – relied on.
Government (NCT of Delhi) v. Manav Dharam Trust and Anr. (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.