LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a subsequent purchaser of land has the right to challenge the lapsing of land acquisition proceedings 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: Delhi Development Authority vs. MGS (India) Private Limited & Ors.
Judgment Date: 17 February 2023
Introduction
Date of the Judgment: 17 February 2023
Citation: (2023) INSC 123
Judges: M.R. Shah, J., C.T. Ravikumar, J., Sanjay Karol, J.
Can a person who buys land after acquisition proceedings have already begun challenge the acquisition itself? This was the core question before the Supreme Court of India in this case. The Court examined whether a subsequent purchaser of land has the legal standing to challenge the lapsing of land acquisition under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. The judgment was delivered by a three-judge bench comprising Justices M.R. Shah, C.T. Ravikumar, and Sanjay Karol, with the opinion authored by Justice M.R. Shah.
Case Background
The case involves a dispute over land acquired by the Delhi Development Authority (DDA). The original writ petitioner, MGS (India) Private Limited, purchased the land after the acquisition proceedings had commenced and the award was declared. The High Court of Delhi ruled in favor of MGS (India) Private Limited, stating that the acquisition had lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013. Aggrieved by this decision, both the DDA and the Government of NCT of Delhi filed appeals before the Supreme Court.
Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Prior to the case | Acquisition proceedings for the land in question commenced. |
| Prior to the case | Award for the land acquisition was declared. |
| After the acquisition proceedings commenced | MGS (India) Private Limited purchased the land. |
| 20 July 2015 | The High Court of Delhi ruled in favor of MGS (India) Private Limited, stating that the acquisition had lapsed. |
| 17 February 2023 | The Supreme Court of India overturned the High Court’s decision, ruling that a subsequent purchaser has no locus to challenge the lapsing of acquisition. |
Course of Proceedings
The High Court of Delhi had allowed the writ petition filed by MGS (India) Private Limited, declaring that the land acquisition had lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013. The DDA and the Government of NCT of Delhi appealed this decision, arguing that MGS (India) Private Limited, being a subsequent purchaser, had no right to challenge the acquisition. The Supreme Court noted that the High Court had not addressed the issue of the petitioner’s locus standi despite it being raised in the counter-affidavit.
Legal Framework
The core legal provision in question is Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013
, which deals with the lapsing of land acquisition proceedings if certain conditions are not met. However, the Supreme Court’s judgment primarily revolves around the interpretation of who has the right to invoke this provision. The Court examined whether a subsequent purchaser, i.e., someone who buys land after the acquisition process has started, has the right to claim that the acquisition has lapsed.
Arguments
Arguments by the Appellants (DDA and Government of NCT of Delhi):
- The primary argument was that MGS (India) Private Limited, being a subsequent purchaser, had no legal standing to challenge the acquisition proceedings or claim that they had lapsed.
- The appellants relied on previous Supreme Court decisions, specifically Shiv Kumar & Anr. Vs. Union of India & Ors., (2019) 10 SCC 229 and Delhi Development Authority Vs. Godfrey Phillips (I) Ltd. & Ors., Civil Appeal No. 3073 of 2022, which established that subsequent purchasers have no locus standi in such matters.
- It was argued that the High Court failed to address the objection regarding the maintainability of the writ petition by a subsequent purchaser.
Arguments by the Respondent (MGS (India) Private Limited):
- The respondent argued that the ruling in Shiv Kumar & Anr. (supra) should not apply because in that case, the petitioner’s claim was based on a general power of attorney, whereas MGS (India) Private Limited had a registered sale deed.
- The respondent relied on the decision in Government (NCT of Delhi) Vs. Manav Dharam Trust and Anr., (2017) 6 SCC 751, which was the prevailing view at the time the High Court made its decision.
| Main Submission | Sub-Submissions |
|---|---|
| Appellants: Subsequent purchaser has no locus standi to challenge acquisition |
✓ MGS (India) Private Limited purchased the land after acquisition proceedings commenced. ✓ Reliance on Shiv Kumar & Anr. Vs. Union of India & Ors., (2019) 10 SCC 229 and Delhi Development Authority Vs. Godfrey Phillips (I) Ltd. & Ors., Civil Appeal No. 3073 of 2022. ✓ High Court failed to address the locus standi issue. |
| Respondent: Subsequent purchaser has locus standi |
✓ Shiv Kumar & Anr. (supra) is not applicable as that case was based on general power of attorney. ✓ Reliance on Government (NCT of Delhi) Vs. Manav Dharam Trust and Anr., (2017) 6 SCC 751. |
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
The primary issue before the Supreme Court was:
- Whether a subsequent purchaser of land, who purchased the land after the initiation of acquisition proceedings, has the locus standi to challenge the acquisition proceedings or claim the lapsing 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 to challenge the lapsing of acquisition? | The Supreme Court held that a subsequent purchaser has no locus standi to challenge the lapsing of acquisition proceedings. |
Authorities
The Supreme Court relied on the following authorities:
- Shiv Kumar & Anr. Vs. Union of India & Ors., (2019) 10 SCC 229 (Supreme Court of India): This case held that a subsequent purchaser does not have the locus to challenge the acquisition proceedings.
- Delhi Development Authority Vs. Godfrey Phillips (I) Ltd. & Ors., Civil Appeal No. 3073 of 2022 (Supreme Court of India): This case reiterated that a subsequent purchaser has no locus to pray for the lapsing of the acquisition.
- Government (NCT of Delhi) Vs. Manav Dharam Trust and Anr., (2017) 6 SCC 751 (Supreme Court of India): The court noted that this decision, which was relied upon by the High Court, was held to be per incuriam in subsequent decisions.
| Authority | How the Court Considered It |
|---|---|
| Shiv Kumar & Anr. Vs. Union of India & Ors., (2019) 10 SCC 229 (Supreme Court of India) | Followed. The court used this case to support its finding that a subsequent purchaser has no locus standi. |
| Delhi Development Authority Vs. Godfrey Phillips (I) Ltd. & Ors., Civil Appeal No. 3073 of 2022 (Supreme Court of India) | Followed. The court used this case to support its finding that a subsequent purchaser has no locus standi to pray for lapsing of the acquisition. |
| Government (NCT of Delhi) Vs. Manav Dharam Trust and Anr., (2017) 6 SCC 751 (Supreme Court of India) | Held to be per incuriam. The court stated that this decision was not valid due to it being in conflict with previous judgments. |
Judgment
| Submission by Parties | How the Court Treated the Submission |
|---|---|
| Appellants: Subsequent purchaser has no locus standi to challenge acquisition | The Court upheld this submission, stating that a subsequent purchaser has no right to challenge the acquisition. |
| Respondent: Subsequent purchaser has locus standi | The Court rejected this submission, stating that the case relied upon by the respondent was held to be per incuriam. |
How each authority was viewed by the Court?
- Shiv Kumar & Anr. Vs. Union of India & Ors., (2019) 10 SCC 229*: The court followed this authority, holding that a subsequent purchaser has no locus standi to challenge the acquisition.
- Delhi Development Authority Vs. Godfrey Phillips (I) Ltd. & Ors., Civil Appeal No. 3073 of 2022*: The court followed this authority, holding that a subsequent purchaser has no locus standi to pray for lapsing of the acquisition.
- Government (NCT of Delhi) Vs. Manav Dharam Trust and Anr., (2017) 6 SCC 751*: The court held that this authority was per incuriam and thus not valid.
What weighed in the mind of the Court?
The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the principle that a subsequent purchaser cannot challenge an acquisition process that was already underway when they purchased the land. The court emphasized the need to maintain the integrity of the land acquisition process and prevent frivolous challenges by those who knowingly purchase land that is already subject to acquisition.
| Sentiment | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Upholding legal precedent | 40% |
| Maintaining integrity of acquisition process | 35% |
| Preventing frivolous challenges | 25% |
| Ratio | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Fact | 20% |
| Law | 80% |
The Court reasoned that allowing subsequent purchasers to challenge acquisitions would create uncertainty and encourage speculative land purchases. The Court emphasized that the law laid down in Shiv Kumar & Anr. and Godfrey Phillips (I) Ltd. & Ors. is clear on this point.
The Court explicitly stated, “Therefore, being a subsequent purchaser, as observed and held by this Court in catena of decisions, more particularly, in the case of Shiv Kumar & Anr. (supra) and Godfrey Phillips (I) Ltd. & Ors. (supra) and other subsequent decisions, subsequent purchaser has no locus to challenge the lapsing of the acquisition.”
The Court further clarified, “In the case of Godfrey Phillips (I) Ltd. & Ors. (supra), it is specifically observed and held that the subsequent purchaser has no locus to pray for lapsing of the acquisition.”
The Court also noted, “Now, so far as the reliance placed upon the decision of this Court in the case of Manav Dharam Trust and Anr. (supra) is concerned, it is required to be noted that the said decision is held to be per incuriam by this Court in the aforesaid decisions.”
Key Takeaways
- A subsequent purchaser of land, who buys the land after the acquisition process has begun, does not have the legal right to challenge the acquisition or claim it has lapsed.
- This ruling reinforces the principle that land acquisition processes should not be disrupted by speculative purchases made after the process has commenced.
- The Supreme Court has clarified the legal position on this issue, overruling the previous view taken in Government (NCT of Delhi) Vs. Manav Dharam Trust and Anr.
Directions
The Supreme Court quashed and set aside the High Court’s judgment and order. The Court directed that there shall not be any deemed lapse of the acquisition proceedings with respect to the land in question.
Development of Law
The ratio decidendi of this case is that a subsequent purchaser of land does not have the locus standi to challenge the lapsing of land acquisition proceedings. This decision reaffirms the position of law established in previous Supreme Court judgments and clarifies that the decision in Government (NCT of Delhi) Vs. Manav Dharam Trust and Anr. is per incuriam and not valid.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s judgment in Delhi Development Authority vs. MGS (India) Private Limited settles the legal position that subsequent purchasers of land cannot challenge land acquisition proceedings. This decision reinforces the importance of maintaining the integrity of land acquisition processes and prevents speculative purchases from disrupting them. The Court’s ruling clarifies the law on locus standi in such cases and provides a clear guideline for future disputes.