Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 – s. 24(2) – It was the specific case on behalf of the appellant that the original writ petitioner or subsequent purchaser has no locus to challenge the acquisition – However, same was not dealt by the High Court – High Court relying upon Pune Municipal Corporation & Anr. Vs Harakchand Misrimal Solanki & ors held that the acquisition proceedings in respect of land in question deemed to have lapsed u/s. 24(2) of 2013 Act on the ground that neither possession of the subject land has not been taken nor has the compensation been tendered/paid to the original petitioner – On appeal, held: In the case of Godfrey Philips (I) Ltd. it was held that subsequent purchaser has no locus to claim lapse of acquisition proceedings – Even otherwise, the decision in the case of Pune Municipal Corporation has been overruled by the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in case of Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal and Ors. – Applying the law laid by the Supreme Court in cases of Godfrey Philips (I) Ltd, Shiv Kumar and Indore Development Authority, the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court unsustainable – Appeal allowed.
Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal & Ors. (2020) 8 SCC 129 : [2020] 3 SCR 1 – followed.
Pune Municipal Corporation & Anr. v. Harakchand Misrimal Solanki & Ors. (2014) 3 SCC 183; Shiv Kumar and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors. (2019) 10 SCC 229; Delhi Development Authority v. Godfrey Philips (I) Ltd. & Ors. (Civil Appeal No. 3073 of 2022 decided by the Supreme Court); M. Venkatesh & Ors. v. Commissioner, Bangalore Development Authority (2015)
17 SCC 1 – referred to.
ANR.
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.