Supreme Court settles the Locus Standi of Subsequent Purchasers under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act: Government of NCT of Delhi vs. Ravinder Kumar Jain & Ors. (2023) INSC 475 (18 May 2023)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 18 May 2023

Citation: (2023) INSC 475

Judges: Abhay S. Oka, J., 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 critical question regarding land acquisition in the case of Government of NCT of Delhi vs. Ravinder Kumar Jain & Ors. The core issue was whether a subsequent purchaser of land could invoke Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (the 2013 Act) to argue that the acquisition had lapsed. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Justices Abhay S. Oka and Rajesh Bindal, with Justice Rajesh Bindal authoring the opinion.

Case Background

The case revolves around the acquisition of land initiated by the government. The acquisition process began with a notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (the 1894 Act) on November 25, 1980. Subsequently, a notification under Section 6 of the 1894 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 started. He then filed a writ petition in 2008 challenging the acquisition, which was also dismissed, with the option to review the earlier dismissal of the original owner’s petition. This review application was also dismissed. The respondent claimed that neither possession of the land was taken nor compensation was paid, and therefore, the acquisition had lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act.

Timeline

Legal Framework

The case primarily involves the interpretation of Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. This section deals with the lapse of land acquisition proceedings initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Specifically, Section 24(2) 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.”

The proviso to Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act specifies that if an award has been made, and compensation for a majority of landholdings has not been deposited, the original owners at the time of the Section 4 notification of the 1894 Act are entitled to compensation under the 2013 Act. The 2013 Act aims to ensure fair compensation and rehabilitation for those whose land is acquired.

Arguments

Appellant (Government of NCT of Delhi):

• The appellant argued that the respondent, being a subsequent purchaser, does not have the locus standi (the right to bring an action) to invoke Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act.
• They cited the Supreme Court’s judgment in Shiv Kumar and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. [2019 (10) SCC 229], which held that a subsequent purchaser after the acquisition process does not have the right to claim that the acquisition has lapsed.
• The original owner’s challenge to the acquisition was dismissed, and the respondent’s attempt to review that order was also dismissed.

Respondent (Ravinder Kumar Jain):

• The respondent contended that neither compensation was paid nor possession of the land was taken by the government.
• He had constructed a house on the land and had been living there for over a decade, paying house tax regularly.
• The sale deed was registered with due permission from authorities under the Delhi Lands (Restrictions on Transfer) Act, 1972.
• Disturbing his possession at this stage would be harsh and deprive him of shelter.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court addressed the following issue:

1. Whether a subsequent purchaser of land, after the issuance of a notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, has the locus standi to 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 proceedings have lapsed.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Court relied on the following authorities to reach its decision:

Judgment

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court’s order, and dismissed the respondent’s writ petition.

The Court specifically addressed how the authorities were viewed:

• Shiv Kumar and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. [2019 (10) SCC 229]: The Court followed this judgment, reiterating that a subsequent purchaser does not have the right to claim that the acquisition has lapsed.
• State (NCT of Delhi) v. Manav Dharam Trust [(2017) 6 SCC 751]: The Court overruled this judgment, stating that it does not lay down the correct law.
• Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal and Others [2020 SCC OnLine SC 316]: The Court followed this judgment which reiterated the position that subsequent purchasers cannot invoke Section 24(2).

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the legal principle that a subsequent purchaser of land, after the issuance of a notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, does not have the right to claim that the acquisition has lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act. This principle is rooted in the idea that a sale of land after the acquisition process has begun is void against the government, and thus, the purchaser cannot claim any rights based on that transaction. The Court emphasized that the 2013 Act is intended to benefit original landowners, not those who purchase land after the acquisition process has commenced.

The Court’s reasoning can be summarized as follows:

The Court rejected the argument that the respondent’s long-term possession and construction on the land should be considered, stating that these factors do not override the legal principle that a subsequent purchaser cannot claim the benefits of Section 24(2). The Court also rejected any alternative interpretations that would allow a subsequent purchaser to claim a lapse in acquisition, emphasizing that such an interpretation would go against the intent of the 2013 Act.

The Court quoted from the judgment:

• “Given that, the transaction of sale, effected after Section 4 notification, is void, is ineffective to transfer the land, such incumbents cannot invoke the provisions of Section 24.”
• “The provisions of the 2013 Act aimed at the acquisition of land with least disturbance to the landowners and other affected families and to provide just and fair compensation to affected families whose land has been acquired or proposed to be acquired or are affected and to make adequate provisions for such affected persons for their rehabilitation and resettlement.”
• “The intendment of the 2013 Act is to benefit farmers, etc. Subsequent purchasers cannot be said to be landowners entitled to restoration of land and cannot be termed to be affected persons within the provisions of the 2013 Act.”

There was no minority opinion in this case.

Key Takeaways

The key practical implications of this judgment are:

• Subsequent purchasers of land after the issuance of a Section 4 notification under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, cannot claim that the acquisition has lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act.
• The 2013 Act is intended to benefit original landowners, not those who purchase land after the acquisition process has commenced.
• Any sale of land after the notification under Section 4 is considered void against the government.
• This judgment reinforces the legal position that subsequent purchasers cannot claim any rights based on void transactions.

This decision clarifies the legal position and may have implications for future cases involving land acquisition and subsequent purchasers.

Directions

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

Specific Amendments Analysis

There is no specific amendment discussed in this judgment.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that a subsequent purchaser of land after the issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, does not have the locus standi to 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 proceedings have lapsed. This judgment reinforces the existing position of law and overrules any conflicting interpretations.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the Supreme Court held that a subsequent purchaser of land cannot invoke Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act to claim that the acquisition has lapsed. The Court emphasized that the 2013 Act is meant to benefit original landowners, and any sale after the initiation of the acquisition process is void against the government. This judgment clarifies the legal position and reinforces the rights of the original landowners in land acquisition cases.