Supreme Court Clarifies Land Acquisition Lapse: Subsequent Purchasers Lack Standing

The Supreme Court of India has delivered a significant judgment clarifying the right of subsequent purchasers to challenge land acquisition proceedings deemed lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (the 2013 Act). In a recent appeal, the court overturned a Delhi High Court decision, holding that subsequent purchasers lack the locus standi to challenge such lapses.

Case Background

The case involved a challenge to a land acquisition deemed lapsed by the Delhi High Court. The original writ petitioners, subsequent purchasers of the land, argued that the acquisition had lapsed due to non-payment of compensation and non-taking of possession. The Government of NCT of Delhi appealed this decision to the Supreme Court.

Arguments Presented

The appellant (Government of NCT of Delhi) argued that the subsequent purchasers lacked the legal standing (locus standi) to challenge the acquisition proceedings. They highlighted that the petitioners did not possess any right or title to the land at the time of the award and therefore could not contest the acquisition. Furthermore, the appellant asserted that the delay in taking possession was due to ongoing litigation initiated by the original landowners. The appellant relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Indore Development Authority versus Manoharlal and others (2020) 8 SCC 129, which clarified the interpretation of Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act and overruled the precedent cited by the High Court.

The respondent (subsequent purchasers) relied on the Delhi High Court's interpretation and the precedent in Pune Municipal Corporation and Anr. Vs. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki and Ors. (2014) 3 SCC 183. This case, however, was subsequently overruled by the Supreme Court’s decision in Indore Development Authority .

Supreme Court's Reasoning and Decision

The Supreme Court's judgment emphasized several key points:

• Locus Standi of Subsequent Purchasers: The court reaffirmed its previous rulings in Shiv Kumar & Anr. Vs. Union of India & Ors. (2019) 10 SCC 229 and subsequent cases, stating unequivocally that subsequent purchasers do not have the right to challenge land acquisition proceedings or their deemed lapse.

• Exclusion of Periods of Stay: The court reiterated that periods during which court stays were in effect should be excluded when calculating the five-year period for determining the lapse under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act. This is in line with the Indore Development Authority judgment.

• Overruling of Precedent: The Supreme Court explicitly overruled the High Court's reliance on the Pune Municipal Corporation case, citing the subsequent clarification provided by the Constitution Bench in Indore Development Authority . The Supreme Court provided a detailed interpretation of Section 24(2), emphasizing that both non-payment of compensation and non-taking of possession are necessary for a deemed lapse, unless specified otherwise in the proviso.

Consequently, the Supreme Court quashed the Delhi High Court's order and dismissed the original writ petition filed by the subsequent purchasers. The acquisition proceedings were deemed not to have lapsed.

Implications

This judgment provides critical clarity on the legal standing of subsequent land purchasers in land acquisition disputes. It reinforces the principle that only those with a vested right at the time of the award can challenge the acquisition process. This decision provides much-needed certainty for acquiring bodies and strengthens their ability to execute land acquisition projects without facing unwarranted delays.