Subsequent Purchaser Has No Locus To Challenge Acquisition Or Lapsing Of Acquisition Under Land Acquisition Act, 2013- Reiterates SC
The Supreme Court has reiterated that the subsequent purchaser has no locus to challenge the acquisition under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (the Act).
The Bench of Justice M.R. Shah and Justice C.T. Ravikumar held that the impugned judgment of the High Court was unsustainable and observed that “Under the circumstances the High Court has seriously erred in entertaining the writ petition preferred by the respondent no.1 – original writ petitioner – subsequent purchaser who had acquired the right, title or interest in the land in question subsequent to the acquisition proceedings, subsequent to passing of the award.”
In this case, the appeal was preferred by the Delhi Development Authority assailing the impugned judgment of the Delhi High Court wherein it had allowed the writ petition preferred by the respondent and had declared that the acquisition with respect to the land in question was deemed to have lapsed under Section 24(2) the Act on the ground that the compensation with respect to the land in question was not paid.
The respondent herein was a subsequent purchaser who had acquired the right, title or interest in the land in question much after the land acquisition proceedings and the award was declared.
Advocate Malvika Kapila appeared for the appellant and Advocates Sujeeta Srivastava and Chand Qureshi appeared for the Respondent
The Apex Court noted that the possession of the land in question was taken over by drawing the panchnama and observed that the “original writ petitioner being subsequent purchaser had no locus to challenge the acquisition and/or lapsing of the acquisition under the Act, 2013.”
The ApexCourt further relied upon the decision of the Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in the case of Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal and others (2020) 8 SCC 129 and observed that even on merits, the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court declaring the acquisition with respect to the land in question had deemed to have lapsed was unsustainable.
Accordingly, the appeal was allowed and the impugned judgment of the High Court was quashed.
Cause Title- Delhi Development Authority v. Beena Gupta (D) Through LRS. & Ors