Supreme Court settles: Subsequent purchasers lack standing to challenge land acquisition lapse in Delhi Development Authority vs. Asha Prakash (20 January 2023)

Date of the Judgment: 20 January 2023
Citation: Civil Appeal No. 364 of 2023 (@ SLP (C) NO. 1501 OF 2023) (@ DIARY NO. 6082 OF 2022)
Judges: M.R. Shah, J. and C.T. Ravikumar, J.

Can a person who buys land after it has been acquired by the government challenge the acquisition process? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this crucial question, clarifying that subsequent purchasers do not have the legal standing to challenge land acquisition proceedings, particularly concerning the lapse of acquisition under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. This judgment settles the law on who can challenge land acquisitions, focusing on the rights of original landowners versus those who purchase land later.

Case Background

The Delhi Development Authority (DDA) appealed a decision by the High Court of Delhi. The High Court had ruled in favor of a writ petition filed by Asha Prakash, a subsequent purchaser of land. The High Court declared that the land acquisition proceedings related to the land in question had lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (Act, 2013). The DDA argued that Asha Prakash, as a subsequent purchaser, did not have the right to challenge the acquisition.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The High Court of Delhi, in its judgment, had relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in Government (NCT of Delhi) Vs. Manav Dharam Trust and Anr., (2017) 6 SCC 751 to overrule the objection on the maintainability of the writ petition by the subsequent purchaser. The High Court then followed the decision in Pune Municipal Corporation and Anr. Vs. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki and Ors., (2014) 3 SCC 183, declaring the acquisition lapsed as compensation had not been paid to the original landowners. The DDA appealed this decision to the Supreme Court, arguing that a subsequent purchaser could not challenge the acquisition.

Legal Framework

The 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 Delhi Development Authority (DDA) argued that a subsequent purchaser has no legal standing to challenge the acquisition or claim a lapse of acquisition. The DDA contended that only the original landowners have the right to raise such challenges. They relied on the Supreme Court’s decisions in Shiv Kumar and Anr. Vs. Union of India and Ors., (2019) 10 SCC 229, Delhi Development Authority Vs. Godfrey Philips (I) Ltd. & Ors., – Civil Appeal No. 3073 of 2022 and Delhi Administration Thr. Secretary, Land and Building Department & Ors. Vs. Pawan Kumar & Ors., – Civil Appeal No. 3646 of 2022, which clarified that subsequent purchasers lack locus standi in such matters.

The respondent, Asha Prakash, as a subsequent purchaser, argued that the acquisition proceedings had lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013, because compensation had not been paid to the original landowners. The High Court had agreed with this argument, relying on the precedent set in Pune Municipal Corporation and Anr. Vs. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki and Ors., (2014) 3 SCC 183.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The primary issue before the Supreme Court was:

1. Whether a subsequent purchaser of land has the legal standing (locus standi) to challenge the acquisition of the land or 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.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Judgment

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal filed by the Delhi Development Authority (DDA). The Court held that the High Court erred in entertaining the writ petition filed by Asha Prakash, the subsequent purchaser. The Court emphasized that a subsequent purchaser does not have the legal standing to challenge the acquisition or claim a lapse of acquisition under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013.

The Supreme Court specifically overruled the High Court’s reliance on Government (NCT of Delhi) Vs. Manav Dharam Trust and Anr., (2017) 6 SCC 751, stating that it was not good law in light of subsequent decisions. Additionally, the Court reiterated that the decision in Pune Municipal Corporation and Anr. Vs. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki and Ors., (2014) 3 SCC 183 had been overruled by the Constitution Bench in Indore Development Authority Vs. Manoharlal and Ors., (2020) 8 SCC 129.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the principle that the right to challenge land acquisition rests with the original landowners, not subsequent purchasers. The Court emphasized the need to prevent speculative litigation by those who purchase land after the acquisition process has begun. The Court also aimed to provide clarity on the interpretation of Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013, aligning with its previous judgments and the Constitution Bench decision in Indore Development Authority Vs. Manoharlal and Ors., (2020) 8 SCC 129.

The court’s reasoning was as follows:

The Court stated, “the High Court has committed a grave error in entertaining the writ petition preferred by the respondent No. 1 herein, who is a subsequent purchaser praying for deemed lapse of acquisition.”

The Court also observed, “the decision of this Court in the case of Manav Dharam Trust and Anr. (supra) , which has been relied upon by the High Court while passing the impugned judgment and order and overruling the objection raised on behalf of the appellant on the maintainability of the writ petition at the instance of the respondent No. 1 – original writ petitioner is held to be not a good law in view of the subsequent decision of this Court in the case of Shiv Kumar and Anr. Vs. Union of India and Ors., (2019) 10 SCC 229 and thereafter in the subsequent decisions in the case of Delhi Development Authority Vs. Godfrey Philips (I) Ltd. & Ors., – Civil Appeal No. 3073 of 2022 and Delhi Administration Thr. Secretary, Land and Building Department & Ors. Vs. Pawan Kumar & Ors., – Civil Appeal No. 3646 of 2022.”

Further, the Court noted, “Even otherwise, the decision of this Court in the case of Pune Municipal Corporation and Anr. (supra) relied upon by the High Court while passing the impugned judgment and order has been specifically overruled by the Constitution Bench of this Court in the case of Indore Development Authority Vs. Manoharlal and Ors., (2020) 8 SCC 129.”

Key Takeaways

• Subsequent purchasers of land do not have the legal standing to challenge land acquisition proceedings or claim a lapse of acquisition.
• The right to challenge land acquisition rests with the original landowners.
• This judgment reinforces the principle that Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013, cannot be invoked by subsequent purchasers.
• The Supreme Court has clarified the law on this issue, overruling previous judgments that had taken a different view.

Directions

The Supreme Court quashed and set aside the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court, allowing the appeal of the Delhi Development Authority.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that subsequent purchasers do not have the locus standi to challenge the acquisition of land or 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. This decision clarifies and reinforces the legal position established in prior Supreme Court rulings, ensuring that only original landowners have the right to challenge land acquisition proceedings. This is a change from the earlier position where the High Court had allowed a subsequent purchaser to challenge the land acquisition.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in Delhi Development Authority vs. Asha Prakash clarifies that subsequent purchasers cannot challenge land acquisition proceedings, particularly concerning the lapse of acquisition under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013. This decision settles the law on who can challenge land acquisitions, focusing on the rights of original landowners versus those who purchase land later.