Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013: s. 24(2)– Land acquisition, when deemed to have lapsed– Writ petition by the respondent-original writ petitioners, being subsequent purchasers seeking declaration that acquisition proceedings pertaining to subject land is deemed to have lapsed in view of s.24(2) – High Court in view of the fact that the possession has not been taken over and the compensation is not paid and relying upon the decision of this Court in Pune Municipal Corporation’s case allowed the writ petition– Sustainability of – Held: Not sustainable – Subsequent purchaser has no locus to challenge the acquisition and/or lapsing of the acquisition–Furthermore, possession could not be taken over due to the pending litigation initiated by the original land owner challenging the acquisition which ended upto this Court, they cannot be entitled to the benefit of lapse – Also, Pune Municipal Corporation and Anr’s case has been overruled in the Indore Development Authority’s case – Thus, order passed by the High Court is quashed and set aside – Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
Indore Development Authority Vs. Manoharlal and Ors, (2020) 8 SCC 129 – followed.
Pune Municipal Corporation and Anr. Vs. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki and Ors. (2014) 3 SCC 183:[2014]
(1) SCR 783; Shiv Kumar and Anr. Vs. Union of India and Ors., (2019) 10 SCC 229, Delhi Development Authority Vs. Godfrey Philips (I) Ltd. & Ors., - Civil Appeal No. 3073 of 2022, Delhi Administration Thr. Secretary, Land and Building Department & Ors. Vs. Pawan Kumar & Ors., - Civil Appeal No. 3646 of 2022 - 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.