IMPORTANT POINT
Lapse of land acquisition proceeding – Subsequent buyer of property after issuance of notification under Section 4 the 1894 Act has no locus to invoke Section 24(2) of 2013 Act.

JUDGMENT :

Rajesh Bindal, J.

1. Challenge in the present appeal is to the order passed by the High Court of Delhi in W.P.(C) No.6912 of 2014 vide which the writ petition filed by the respondent no.1 invoking 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”) was allowed and it was held that the acquisition in question had lapsed for the reason that neither the possession of the land was taken nor the compensation therefor was paid.

2. The argument raised by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant is that the original owner of the land challenged the acquisition by filing W.P.(C) No.1229 of 1986 which was dismissed for non-prosecution on 09.12.2004. The respondent No.1 claimed that he had purchased the land in question from the original owner in terms of the no objection certificate granted to him under Section 8 of the Delhi Lands (Restrictions on Transfer) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as “the 1972 Act”), vide sale deed dated 18.06.2023. The respondent No.1 also filed writ petition challenging the acquisition, after the purchase of the land, bearing W.P.(C) No.3701 of 2008, which was dismissed on 22.10.2008 leaving it open to the respondent no.1 to file review/recall of the order dated 09.12.2004, vide which the writ petition filed by the original owner, challenging the acquisition of land, was dismissed. It was submitted that the aforesaid application was also dismissed. Referring to the judgment of this Court in Shiv Kumar and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors., 2019 (10) SCC 229, it was submitted that a subsequent buyer of the land after the process of acquisition is complete does not have any locus to invoke Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act, to claim that the acquisition in question has lapsed. Hence, the writ petition itself being not maintainable deserves to be dismissed. The order passed by the High Court be set aside.

3. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent no.1 submitted that it is a case where neither the compensation has been paid nor the possession of the land has been taken. The respondent no.1 has already constructed his house on the land in question and living there for more than a decade. He is assessed to house tax, which is being paid regularly. At this stage, disturbing his possession will be quite harsh as he would be deprived of shelter on his head. He further submitted that the sale deed in the case was registered after due permission from the authorities under the provisions of the 1972 Act. Hence, at this stage, he should not be deprived of his possession. The appeal be dismissed.

4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the paper book.

5. The basic facts which are not in dispute are that the process of acquisition of land in question started with the issuance of notification of Section 4 of the 1894 Act on 25.11.1980. Subsequently, notification under Section 6 was issued on 27.05.1985. The owner of the land at that stage challenged the acquisition by filing W.P.(C) No.1229 of 1986. Award under Section 11 of the 1894 Act was announced by the Land Acquisition Collector on 05.06.1987. The writ petition was dismissed for non-prosecution on 09.12.2004. The High Court also recorded that the issue raised in the petition is otherwise also covered by various judgments.

6. The respondent no.1, Ravinder Kumar Jain had purchased the land in question vide registered sale deed dated 18.06.2003. The fact that he had knowledge about the acquisition of land, is evident from two facts. Firstly, that it was sought to be pointed out by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent no. 1 that he had obtained permission from the competent authority in terms of the provisions of the 1972 Act for transfer of the land, which had already been acquired. Though, in para 13 of the sale deed a vague averment has been made in that regard, howeve