IMPORTANT POINT
Lapse of land acquisition proceeding – Landowners who had refused to accept compensation or who sought reference for higher compensation, cannot claim that acquisition proceedings had lapsed under Section 24(2) of 2013 Act.

JUDGMENT :

M.R. Shah, J.

1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in Writ Petition (C) No. 2674 of 2017 by which the High Court has declared that the acquisition proceedings initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as “Act, 1894”) with regard to the subject land is deemed to have lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as “Act, 2013”), the Government of NCT of Delhi and Anr. have preferred the present appeal.

2. From the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court, it appears that a specific objection was raised on behalf of the appellants – original respondents that the original writ petitioner being subsequent purchaser is not entitled to challenge the acquisition proceedings. Before the High Court, it was also specifically pointed out and so stated in the counter that the possession of the land in question was taken over on 16.07.2007. However, thereafter, overruling the objection on behalf of the appellants on the maintainability of the writ petition by the subsequent purchaser – original writ petitioner and ignoring the stand taken on behalf of the appellants that the possession was taken over on 16.07.2007, the High Court has declared the acquisition proceedings lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013 solely on the ground that the compensation has not been tendered to the original writ petitioner.

2.1 On the maintainability of the writ petition, challenge to the land acquisition proceedings by the subsequent purchaser, in the recent decision of this Court in the case of Delhi Development Authority Vs. Godfrey Philips (I) Ltd. & Ors., Civil Appeal No. 3073 of 2022 after considering the catena of decisions on the point and even after taking into consideration the decision of this Court in the case of Government (NCT of Delhi) Vs. Manav Dharam Trust & Anr., (2017) 6 SCC 751, in the decision, which has been relied upon by the High Court, it is specifically observed and held that the subsequent purchaser has no locus to challenge the acquisition proceedings. In view of the decision of this Court in the case of Godfrey Philips (I) Ltd. & Ors. (supra) taking the view that the subsequent purchaser is not entitled to claim lapsing of the acquisition proceedings under the Act, 2013, the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court taking the view that the writ petition at the instance of the subsequent purchaser claiming lapsing of the acquisition proceedings under the Act, 2013 would be maintainable, is unsustainable.

2.2 Even otherwise, the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court declaring that the acquisition proceedings under the Act, 1894 with respect to the land in question is deemed to have lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013 on the ground that the compensation was not tendered to the original writ petitioner is unsustainable in view of the Constitution Bench decision of this Court in the case of Indore Development Authority Vs. Manoharlal and Ors., (2020) 8 SCC 129. At this stage, it is required to be noted that before the High Court, it was the specific case on behalf of the appellants that the possession of the land in question was taken over by preparing a possession proceeding on the spot. In paragraph 366, the Constitution Bench of this Court in the case of Indore Development Authority (supra) has observed and held as under:-

“366. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we answer the questions as under:

366.1. Under the provisions of Section 24(1)(a) in case the award is not made as on 1-1-2014, the date of commencement of the 2013 Act, there is no lapse of proceedings. Compensation has to be determined under the provisions of the 2013 Act.

366.2. In case the award has been passed within the window period of five years excluding the period covered by