LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a subsequent purchaser of land has the locus standi to challenge the acquisition of land under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.
CASE TYPE: Land Acquisition
Case Name: Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Anr. vs. Manjeet Kaur & Anr.
Judgment Date: 13 March 2023
Date of the Judgment: 13 March 2023
Citation: 2023 INSC 221
Judges: M.R. Shah, J. and C.T. Ravikumar, J.
Can a person who buys land after the government has initiated acquisition proceedings challenge that acquisition? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this crucial question, clarifying the rights of subsequent purchasers in land acquisition cases. This judgment in the case of Govt. of NCT of Delhi vs. Manjeet Kaur, sets a significant precedent regarding who can challenge land acquisition under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.
Case Background
The case involves a dispute over land located in the Revenue Estate of Village Satbari, New Delhi. The Government of NCT of Delhi initiated acquisition proceedings for Khasra No. 668/1 min (0-12) and 668/2 (01-08), totaling 2 bighas. The original writ petitioner, Manjeet Kaur, claimed ownership of the land based on an agreement to sell, assignment deed, receipt, possession letter, electricity bill, and property tax bill. However, no formal sale deed was presented. The High Court of Delhi ruled in favor of Manjeet Kaur, stating that the acquisition had lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (Act, 2013), as neither possession had been taken nor compensation paid. The Government of NCT of Delhi appealed this decision to the Supreme Court.
Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Unknown | Government of NCT of Delhi initiates acquisition proceedings for land in Village Satbari, New Delhi. |
| Unknown | Manjeet Kaur claims ownership based on an agreement to sell, assignment deed, receipt, possession letter, electricity bill and property tax bill. |
| Unknown | High Court of Delhi declares the acquisition lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013. |
| 13 March 2023 | Supreme Court of India overturns the High Court’s decision in favor of the Government of NCT of Delhi. |
Course of Proceedings
The High Court of Delhi allowed the writ petition filed by Manjeet Kaur, declaring that the acquisition of the land had lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013. The High Court relied on the judgment in Pune Municipal Corporation and Anr. Vs. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki and Ors., (2014) 3 SCC 183, observing that neither possession of the land was taken nor compensation was paid. The Government of NCT of Delhi appealed this decision, arguing that Manjeet Kaur, as a subsequent purchaser, had no locus standi to challenge the acquisition.
Legal Framework
The core of this case revolves around Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, which deals with the lapse of land acquisition proceedings.
Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013 states:
“Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), in case of land acquisition proceedings initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (1 of 1894), where an award under the said Act has been made five years or more prior to the commencement of this Act but the physical possession of the land has not been taken or the compensation has not been paid the said proceedings shall be deemed to have lapsed and the appropriate Government, if it so chooses, shall initiate the proceedings of such land acquisition afresh in accordance with the provisions of this Act”
Arguments
The Government of NCT of Delhi argued that Manjeet Kaur, being a subsequent purchaser, had no legal standing (locus standi) to challenge the acquisition or claim a deemed lapse of the acquisition proceedings. The government contended that the original writ petitioner claimed ownership based on an agreement to sell, assignment deed, receipt, possession letter, electricity bill, and property tax bill, but no sale deed was produced.
The respondent argued that the acquisition proceedings should be deemed to have lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013, as neither possession of the land had been taken nor compensation had been paid. They relied on the High Court’s decision, which was based on the interpretation of Section 24(2) in the case of Pune Municipal Corporation and Anr. Vs. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki and Ors., (2014) 3 SCC 183.
| Main Submission | Sub-Submissions |
|---|---|
| Government of NCT of Delhi |
✓ Subsequent purchaser has no locus standi to challenge the acquisition. ✓ Original writ petitioner’s claim is based on an agreement to sell, not a sale deed. |
| Manjeet Kaur (Respondent) |
✓ Acquisition proceedings should be deemed to have lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013. ✓ Neither possession was taken nor compensation was paid. ✓ Relied on the decision of the High Court and Pune Municipal Corporation and Anr. Vs. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki and Ors., (2014) 3 SCC 183. |
The innovativeness of the argument of the Government was that it challenged the locus standi of the subsequent purchaser to challenge the acquisition proceedings.
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
The primary issue before the Supreme Court was:
✓ Whether a subsequent purchaser has the locus standi to challenge the acquisition/deemed lapse of acquisition under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013.
Treatment of the Issue by the Court
| Issue | Court’s Decision |
|---|---|
| Whether a subsequent purchaser has the locus standi to challenge the acquisition/deemed lapse of acquisition under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013. | The Supreme Court held that a subsequent purchaser does not have the locus standi to challenge the acquisition or claim a deemed lapse of acquisition proceedings. |
Authorities
The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:
| Authority | Legal Point | How it was Used |
|---|---|---|
| Pune Municipal Corporation and Anr. Vs. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki and Ors., (2014) 3 SCC 183, Supreme Court of India | Interpretation of Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013 | Overruled by Indore Development Authority Vs. Manoharlal and Ors., (2020) 8 SCC 129 |
| Shiv Kumar & Anr. Vs. Union of India & Ors. (2019) 10 SCC 229, Supreme Court of India | Locus standi of subsequent purchasers | Followed, holding that subsequent purchasers have no locus standi to claim lapse of acquisition proceedings. |
| Delhi Development Authority Vs. Godfrey Philips (I) Ltd. & Ors. Civil Appeal No. 3073/2022, Supreme Court of India | Locus standi of subsequent purchasers | Followed, affirming that subsequent purchasers have no locus standi to claim lapse of acquisition proceedings. |
| Meera Sahni Vs. Lieutenant Governor of Delhi & Ors., (2008) 9 SCC 173, Supreme Court of India | Locus standi of subsequent purchasers | Considered in Godfrey Philips (I) Ltd., which held that subsequent purchasers have no locus standi to claim lapse of acquisition proceedings. |
| M. Venkatesh & Ors. Vs. Commissioner, Bangalore Development Authority (2015) 17 SCC 1, Supreme Court of India | Locus standi of subsequent purchasers | Considered in Godfrey Philips (I) Ltd., which held that subsequent purchasers have no locus standi to claim lapse of acquisition proceedings. |
| Indore Development Authority Vs. Manoharlal and Ors., (2020) 8 SCC 129, Supreme Court of India | Interpretation of Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013 | Overruled Pune Municipal Corporation, clarifying the interpretation of Section 24(2) regarding possession and compensation. |
| Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 | Deemed lapse of land acquisition proceedings. | Interpreted to mean that a deemed lapse occurs only when both possession has not been taken and compensation has not been paid. |
Judgment
| Submission | Court’s Treatment |
|---|---|
| Government of NCT of Delhi’s submission that subsequent purchaser has no locus standi. | Accepted. The Court held that a subsequent purchaser has no locus standi to challenge the acquisition or claim a deemed lapse of acquisition. |
| Manjeet Kaur’s submission that the acquisition should lapse under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013. | Rejected. The Court held that the acquisition did not lapse as the possession could not be taken due to pending litigation/stay. |
How each authority was viewed by the Court?
✓ The Supreme Court held that the decision in Pune Municipal Corporation and Anr. Vs. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki and Ors., (2014) 3 SCC 183* was overruled by the Constitution Bench in Indore Development Authority Vs. Manoharlal and Ors., (2020) 8 SCC 129*.
✓ The Court followed the decisions in Shiv Kumar & Anr. Vs. Union of India & Ors. (2019) 10 SCC 229* and Delhi Development Authority Vs. Godfrey Philips (I) Ltd. & Ors. Civil Appeal No. 3073/2022*, which established that a subsequent purchaser has no locus standi to claim a lapse of acquisition proceedings.
What weighed in the mind of the Court?
The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the legal principle that a subsequent purchaser does not have the right to challenge acquisition proceedings. The Court emphasized the need to prevent speculative litigation and ensure that only those directly affected by the acquisition at the time it was initiated can challenge it. The Court also highlighted that the interpretation of Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013, as clarified in Indore Development Authority Vs. Manoharlal and Ors., (2020) 8 SCC 129, requires both non-taking of possession and non-payment of compensation for a deemed lapse to occur.
| Reason | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Locus Standi of Subsequent Purchasers | 60% |
| Interpretation of Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013 | 40% |
| Category | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Fact | 20% |
| Law | 80% |
The Court’s reasoning was based on the following points:
✓ The High Court erred in declaring the acquisition lapsed based on the overruled judgment in Pune Municipal Corporation.
✓ The Constitution Bench in Indore Development Authority clarified that Section 24(2) requires both non-taking of possession and non-payment of compensation for a deemed lapse.
✓ The possession of the land could not be taken due to pending litigation/stay.
✓ The Court reiterated that “the subsequent purchaser has no locus to claim lapse of acquisition proceedings.”
✓ The Court also stated that “the word “or” used in Section 24(2) between possession and compensation has to be read as “nor” or as “and”.”
✓ The Court clarified that “the deemed lapse of land acquisition proceedings under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act takes place where due to inaction of authorities for five years or more prior to commencement of the said Act, the possession of land has not been taken nor compensation has been paid.”
Key Takeaways
- ✓ Subsequent purchasers of land cannot challenge prior land acquisition proceedings under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013.
- ✓ A deemed lapse of acquisition under Section 24(2) requires both non-taking of possession and non-payment of compensation.
- ✓ This judgment prevents speculative litigation and clarifies the rights of parties in land acquisition cases.
Directions
The Supreme Court quashed the High Court’s judgment and dismissed the original writ petition. The Court also stated that there shall be no deemed lapse of the acquisition with respect to the land in question.
Development of Law
The ratio decidendi of this case is that a subsequent purchaser does not have the locus standi to challenge the acquisition proceedings or claim a deemed lapse of acquisition under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. This judgment reaffirms the position of law established in Shiv Kumar & Anr. Vs. Union of India & Ors. (2019) 10 SCC 229 and Delhi Development Authority Vs. Godfrey Philips (I) Ltd. & Ors. Civil Appeal No. 3073/2022, and clarifies the interpretation of Section 24(2) as laid down in Indore Development Authority Vs. Manoharlal and Ors., (2020) 8 SCC 129.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the Supreme Court’s judgment in Govt. of NCT of Delhi vs. Manjeet Kaur clarifies that subsequent purchasers do not have the locus standi to challenge land acquisition proceedings under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013. The Court emphasized that a deemed lapse requires both non-taking of possession and non-payment of compensation. This decision reinforces established legal principles and prevents speculative litigation in land acquisition cases.
Category:
- Land Acquisition
- Section 24(2), Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013
- Locus Standi
- Subsequent Purchaser
- Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013
- Section 24(2), Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013
FAQ
Q: Can I challenge a land acquisition if I bought the land after the acquisition process started?
A: No, according to this Supreme Court judgment, subsequent purchasers do not have the legal standing (locus standi) to challenge land acquisition proceedings.
Q: What does “deemed lapse” mean in the context of land acquisition?
A: A “deemed lapse” means that the land acquisition proceedings are considered to have automatically ended. Under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013, this happens if the authorities have not taken physical possession of the land and have not paid compensation for five years or more before the 2013 Act came into force.
Q: What if the authorities have taken possession of the land but haven’t paid compensation?
A: As per the Supreme Court, if possession has been taken, the acquisition will not lapse, even if compensation has not been paid. Similarly, if compensation has been paid, the acquisition will not lapse even if possession has not been taken.
Q: What if compensation has been offered but I haven’t accepted it?
A: If compensation has been offered as per Section 31(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, the obligation to pay is considered complete. The landowner cannot claim that the acquisition has lapsed due to non-payment or non-deposit of compensation in court.
Q: What does this judgment mean for future land acquisition cases?
A: This judgment sets a precedent that prevents subsequent purchasers from challenging land acquisition proceedings. It also clarifies the interpretation of Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013, ensuring that authorities are not penalized for delays caused by litigation or other factors.