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 no.1-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) since neither physical possession of the land was taken nor they were paid compensation – Allowed by the High Court – Sustainability of – Held: Not sustainable – Possession was taken over by the acquiring body and handed over to the beneficiary, any possession by the petitioners thereafter can be said to be encroachment and the encroachers cannot be permitted to take the benefit of the provisions of s. 24(2) – It would be giving a premium to the illegality and the encroachers which cannot be the intention of the legislature – Subsequent purchasers have no locus to challenge the acquisition and/or lapsing of acquisition – Thus, the writ petition by the respondents being subsequent purchasers ought not to have been entertained by the High Court – Order passed by the High Court is quashed and set aside – Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
Delhi Administration Thr. Secretary, Land and Building Department & Ors. Vs. Pawan Kumar & Ors., Civil Appeal No. 3646 of 2022; Delhi Development Authority Vs. Godfrey Philips (I) Ltd. & Ors., Civil Appeal No. 3073 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.