Supreme Court clarifies land acquisition rights of subsequent purchasers: Government of NCT of Delhi vs. Ravinder Kumar Jain & Ors. (2023) INSC 558 (18 May 2023)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 18 May 2023
Citation: 2023 INSC 558
Judges: Abhay S. Oka, J. and Rajesh Bindal, J.
Can a person who buys land after the government has already started the process to acquire it, claim that the acquisition has lapsed because the government didn’t take possession or pay compensation? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this issue, clarifying the rights of subsequent purchasers in land acquisition cases. This judgment clarifies that such purchasers cannot claim that the acquisition has lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. The judgment was delivered by a division bench comprising Justices Abhay S. Oka and Rajesh Bindal, with Justice Rajesh Bindal authoring the opinion.

Case Background

The case revolves around land acquisition proceedings initiated by the Government of NCT of Delhi. The acquisition process began with a notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, on November 25, 1980. Subsequently, a notification under Section 6 of the same Act was issued on May 27, 1985. The original owner of the land challenged this acquisition by filing a writ petition in 1986, which was later dismissed for non-prosecution on December 9, 2004.

Ravinder Kumar Jain, the respondent, purchased the land on June 18, 2003, after the initial acquisition process had begun. He then filed a writ petition in 2008, challenging the acquisition, which was also dismissed on October 22, 2008. The High Court of Delhi, in the impugned order, had allowed the respondent’s plea that the acquisition had lapsed because neither possession was taken nor compensation paid. The Government of NCT of Delhi appealed this order to the Supreme Court.

Timeline:

Arguments

Appellant’s Arguments:
✓ The appellant argued that the original owner had challenged the acquisition, which was dismissed.
✓ The respondent, being a subsequent purchaser after the acquisition process was initiated, has no right to claim that the acquisition had lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act.
✓ The appellant relied on the Supreme Court’s judgment in Shiv Kumar and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors., which held that a subsequent buyer does not have the locus to invoke Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act.

Respondent’s Arguments:
✓ The respondent contended that neither compensation had been paid nor had possession of the land been taken.
✓ The respondent had constructed a house on the land and was living there for over a decade, paying house tax regularly.
✓ The respondent argued that the sale deed was registered after obtaining permission from the authorities under the Delhi Lands (Restrictions on Transfer) Act, 1972.
✓ Therefore, the respondent should not be deprived of possession.

Submissions by Parties

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The primary issue before the Supreme Court was:
✓ Whether a subsequent purchaser of land, after the initiation of acquisition proceedings, can invoke Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, to claim that the acquisition has lapsed.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Court considered the following authorities:

Cases:

• Shiv Kumar and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors., 2019 (10) SCC 229 (Supreme Court of India): The Court relied on this judgment to reiterate that a subsequent purchaser of land does not have the locus to invoke Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act. The Court in Shiv Kumar held that the right to receive compensation under the 2013 Act is with the recorded owner at the time of issuance of notification under Section 4 of the 1894 Act.
• State (NCT of Delhi) v. Manav Dharam Trust, (2017) 6 SCC 751 (Supreme Court of India): This judgment was specifically overruled by the Court, stating that it did not lay down the correct law. The Court held that the decision in Manav Dharam Trust was per incuriam, as it ignored the binding precedents of larger and coordinate benches.
• Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal and Others, 2020 SCC OnLine SC 316 (Supreme Court of India): The Constitution Bench reiterated that a subsequent buyer after the issuance of notification under Section 4 of the 1894 Act has no locus to invoke Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act.
• U.P. Jal Nigam v. Kalra Properties (P) Ltd., (1996) 3 SCC 124 (Supreme Court of India): This case was cited in Shiv Kumar to support the view that a purchaser after Section 4 notification cannot question the proceedings of taking possession under the 1894 Act.
• M. Venkatesh v. BDA, (2015) 17 SCC 1 (Supreme Court of India): This case was also cited in Shiv Kumar to support the view that a purchaser after Section 4 notification cannot question the proceedings of taking possession under the 1894 Act.
• Mamleshwar Prasad v. Kanhaiya Lal, (1975) 2 SCC 232 (Supreme Court of India): This case was cited in the overruling of Manav Dharam Trust to emphasize the binding nature of larger bench decisions.
• A.R. Antulay v. R.S. Nayak, (1988) 2 SCC 602 (Supreme Court of India): This case was cited in the overruling of Manav Dharam Trust to emphasize the binding nature of larger bench decisions.
• State of U.P. v. Synthetics and Chemicals Ltd., (1991) 4 SCC 139 (Supreme Court of India): This case was cited in the overruling of Manav Dharam Trust to emphasize the binding nature of larger bench decisions.
• B. Shama Rao v. State (UT of Pondicherry), AIR 1967 SC 1480 (Supreme Court of India): This case was cited in the overruling of Manav Dharam Trust to emphasize the binding nature of larger bench decisions.
• MCD v. Gurnam Kaur, (1989) 1 SCC 101 (Supreme Court of India): This case was cited in the overruling of Manav Dharam Trust to emphasize the binding nature of larger bench decisions.
• State of M.P. v. Narmada Bachao Andolan, (2011) 7 SCC 639 (Supreme Court of India): This case was cited in the overruling of Manav Dharam Trust to emphasize the binding nature of larger bench decisions.
• Hyder Consulting (UK) Ltd. v. State of Orissa, (2015) 2 SCC 189 (Supreme Court of India): This case was cited in the overruling of Manav Dharam Trust to emphasize the binding nature of larger bench decisions.
• Sant Lal Gupta v. Modern Coop. Group Housing Society Ltd., (2010) 13 SCC 336 (Supreme Court of India): This case was cited in the overruling of Manav Dharam Trust to emphasize the binding nature of larger bench decisions.
• Vineeta Sharma v. Rakesh Sharma, (2019) 6 SCC 162 (Supreme Court of India): This case was cited by the counsel for the respondent to argue for a reference to a larger bench, but the Court rejected this contention.
• Prakash v. Phulavati, (2016) 2 SCC 36 (Supreme Court of India): This case was cited in Vineeta Sharma.
• Danamma v. Amar, (2018) 3 SCC 343 (Supreme Court of India): This case was cited in Vineeta Sharma.

Statutes:

• Section 4, Land Acquisition Act, 1894: This section pertains to the notification of land required for public purposes.
• Section 6, Land Acquisition Act, 1894: This section pertains to the declaration that the land is required for public purpose.
• Section 11, Land Acquisition Act, 1894: This section pertains to the inquiry and award by the Collector.
• Section 24(2), Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013: This section deals with the lapsing of acquisition proceedings if possession is not taken or compensation is not paid.
• Section 8, Delhi Lands (Restrictions on Transfer) Act, 1972: This section deals with obtaining a no-objection certificate for the transfer of land.

Use of Authorities

Judgment

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The Supreme Court followed Shiv Kumar and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. [2019 (10) SCC 229], which held that a subsequent purchaser does not have the right to invoke Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act.
• The Supreme Court overruled State (NCT of Delhi) v. Manav Dharam Trust [(2017) 6 SCC 751], stating that it did not lay down the correct law and was per incuriam, as it ignored the binding precedents of larger and coordinate benches.
• The Supreme Court followed Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal and Others [2020 SCC OnLine SC 316], which reiterated that a subsequent buyer after the issuance of notification under Section 4 of the 1894 Act has no locus to invoke Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the established legal principle that a subsequent purchaser of land, after the initiation of acquisition proceedings, does not have the right to claim that the acquisition has lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act. The Court emphasized that such purchasers do not have the locus standi to invoke this provision. The Court also highlighted the binding nature of decisions by larger benches and coordinate benches, leading to the overruling of the Manav Dharam Trust judgment. The Court focused on the legislative intent of the 2013 Act, which is to benefit the original landowners and not subsequent purchasers who buy land after the acquisition process has begun. The Court also noted that such transactions are void and do not confer any rights on the purchaser against the State.

Fact:Law Ratio

Logical Reasoning

Key Takeaways

• A subsequent purchaser of land, after the initiation of acquisition proceedings, does not have the right to claim that the acquisition has lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.
• The right to claim lapse of acquisition under Section 24(2) is limited to the original landowners who were recorded as beneficiaries at the time of the issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
• Transactions of sale of land after the issuance of a Section 4 notification are considered void and do not confer any rights on the purchaser against the State.
• The Supreme Court has emphasized the importance of following the decisions of larger and coordinate benches, overruling judgments that do not adhere to this principle.

Directions

The Supreme Court set aside the order of the High Court and dismissed the writ petition filed by the respondent.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that a subsequent purchaser of land, after the initiation of acquisition proceedings, does not have the locus standi to invoke Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act. This judgment reinforces the position of law established in Shiv Kumar and Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal. The overruling of State (NCT of Delhi) v. Manav Dharam Trust clarifies the law and ensures that the binding nature of decisions by larger and coordinate benches is upheld.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in Government of NCT of Delhi vs. Ravinder Kumar Jain & Ors. clarifies that subsequent purchasers of land cannot claim that the acquisition has lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act. The Court emphasized that such purchasers do not have the locus standi to invoke this provision, and that the right to claim lapse of acquisition is limited to the original landowners. This decision reinforces the settled legal position and ensures that the legislative intent of the 2013 Act is upheld.

Category

Parent Category: Land Acquisition Law
Child Category: Locus Standi
Child Category: Section 24(2), Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013
Parent Category: Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013
Child Category: Section 24(2), Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013
Parent Category: Land Acquisition Act, 1894
Child Category: Section 4, Land Acquisition Act, 1894

FAQ

Q: Can I claim my land back if I bought it after the government started the acquisition process?
A: No, according to this Supreme Court judgment, if you purchased land after the government issued a notification for acquisition under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, you cannot claim that the acquisition has lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act.

Q: What does ‘locus standi’ mean in this context?
A: ‘Locus standi’ means the right to bring an action or be heard in court. In this case, the Supreme Court held that subsequent purchasers do not have the right to claim that the acquisition has lapsed.

Q: What is Section 24(2) of the 2013 Land Acquisition Act?
A: Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, deals with the lapsing of acquisition proceedings if the government has not taken possession of the land or paid compensation.

Q: What happens to the sale deed if I buy land after the acquisition process starts?
A: The Supreme Court has clarified that such sale deeds are considered void and do not confer any rights on the purchaser against the State.

Q: Who can claim the benefits under the 2013 Land Acquisition Act?
A: The benefits under the 2013 Act are primarily meant for the original landowners who were recorded as beneficiaries at the time of the issuance of notification under Section 4 of the 1894 Act.