IMPORTANT POINT
The subsequent purchaser, the assignee, the successor in interest, the power of attorney, etc., are all persons who are interested in compensation/land owners/affected persons in terms of the 2013 Act and such persons are entitled to file a case for a declaration that the land acquisition proceedings have lapsed by virtue of operation of Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act.

Headnote:Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 – Section 24(2) and 2; and sections 3 and 5, Delhi Lands (Restrictions on Transfer) Act, 1972 – Interested person and affected family – Subsequent purchasers , held covered u/s 2 – Not challenging the acquisition proceedings – Only seeking declaration that proceedings have lapsed – Proceedings in fact have lapsed – Subsequent purchasers/successors, held, affected by the acquisition, and therefore, entitled to seek a declaration on lapse under 2013 Act. (Para 27, 30)
       (2016) 8 SCALE 655 – Relied upon
       MANU/KA/3319/2016 – Cited with approval
       (1996) 3 SCC 124; (1996) 7 SCC 426; (2008) 9 SCC 177; (2012) 12 SCC 133; (2013) 5 SCC 427 – Distinguished
       Facts of the case:
       Whether the subsequent purchasers/assignees/power of attorney holders, etc., have locus standi to file a petition for a declaration of lapse of acquisition proceedings under Section 24(2) of The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, is the only issue arising for consideration in these cases.
       The High Court has taken the view in favour of such people.
       Finding of the Court:
       The subsequent purchaser, the assignee, the successor in interest, the power of attorney, etc., are all persons who are interested in compensation/land owners/affected persons in terms of the 2013 Act and such persons are entitled to file a case for a declaration that the land acquisition proceedings have lapsed by virtue of operation of Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act.

JUDGMENT

KURIAN, J.

Leave granted.

2. Whether the subsequent purchasers/assignees/power of attorney holders, etc., have locus standi to file a petition for a declaration of lapse of acquisition proceedings under Section 24(2) of The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as "the 2013 Act"), is the only issue arising for consideration in these cases.

3. The High Court has taken the view in favour of such people. Thus, aggrieved the NCT of Delhi and Delhi Development Authority are in appeals before this Court.

4. At the outset, we may note that in these cases, the land acquisition proceedings have otherwise lapsed by the operation of Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act since either compensation was not paid or possession was not taken within five years prior to 01.01.2014, the date of coming into force of the 2013 Act. Thus, the dispute is only on the locus standi.

5. Shri Amarendra Saran, learned Senior Counsel leading the arguments on behalf of the appellants submits that in all these cases, the transfer is in violation of The Delhi Lands (Restrictions on Transfer) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as "the Delhi Act, 1972"). The transfers in favour of the writ petitioners are hence void, and accordingly, the beneficiary of an illegal/void transaction is not entitled to file a case for any relief.

6. Reliance is placed on Sections 3,4,8, and 9 of the 1972 Act, which read as follows:

"3. Prohibition on transfer of lands acquired by Central Government –

No person shall purport to transfer by sale, mortgage, gift, lease or otherwise any land or part thereof situated in the Union territory of Delhi which has been acquired by the Central Government under the Land Acquisition Act, 1984 or under any other law providing for acquisition of land for a public purpose.

4. Regulation on transfer of lands in relation to which acquisition proceedings have been initiated.

No person shall, except with the previous permission in writing of the competent authority, transfer or purport to transfer by sale, mortgage, gift, lease or otherwise any land or part thereof situated in the Union territory of Delhi, which is proposed to be acquired in connection with the Scheme and in relation to which a declaration to the effect that such land or part thereof is needed for a public purpose having been made by the Central Government under section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, the Central Government has not withdrawn from the acquisition under section 48 of that Act.

xxx xxx xxx

8. Restrictions on registration of transfers of land –

Notwithstanding any thing contained in any other law for the time being in force, where any document required to be registered under the provisions of clause (a) to clause (e) of sub-section (1) of section 17 of the Registration Act, 1908, purports to transfer by sale, mortgage, gift, lease or otherwise any land or part thereof referred to in section 4, no registering officer appointed under that Act shall register any such document unless the transferor produces before such registering officer a permission in writing of the competent authority for such transfer.

9. Penalty –

If any person contravenes the provisions of section 3 or section 4, he shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years or with fine or with both."

7. Learned Senior Counsel and other learned Counsel further submitted that the issue is no more res integra in view of the following decisions of this Court:

(i) U.P. Jal Nigam, Lucknow Through Its Chairman and another v. Kalra Properties (P) Ltd., Lucknow and others, (1996) 3 SCC 124.

(ii) Sneh Prabha (Smt.) and others v. State of U.P. and another, (1996) 7 SCC 426.

(iii) Meera Sahni v. Lieutenant Governor of Delhi and others, (2008) 9 SCC 177.

(iv) V. Chandrasekaran and another v. Administrative Officer and others, (2012) 12 SCC 133.

(v) Rajasthan State Industrial Development and Investment Corporation v

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2017 Supreme(SC) 452

Cases Referred (6)