LEGAL ISSUE: Whether subsequent purchasers of land have the right to challenge land acquisition proceedings.
CASE TYPE: Land Acquisition
Case Name: Government of NCT of Delhi vs. Vijay Gupta & Ors.
Judgment Date: 24 March 2023
Date of the Judgment: 24 March 2023
Citation: Civil Appeal No. 1784 of 2023 (@ SLP (C) No. 5386 of 2023) (Diary No. 9620 of 2022)
Judges: M.R. Shah, J., C.T. Ravikumar, J.
Can a person who buys land after it has been acquired by the government challenge the acquisition? The Supreme Court recently addressed this question, clarifying the rights of subsequent purchasers in land acquisition cases. This judgment emphasizes that only those with a valid title at the time of acquisition can challenge the proceedings, not those who purchase the land later. The bench consisted of Justices M.R. Shah and C.T. Ravikumar, with the judgment authored by Justice M.R. Shah.
Case Background
The Government of NCT of Delhi initiated land acquisition proceedings. Subsequently, the contesting respondents purchased the land. The respondents then filed a writ petition in the High Court of Delhi, arguing 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. The High Court ruled in favor of the respondents, declaring the acquisition lapsed. The Government of NCT of Delhi appealed this decision to the Supreme Court.
Timeline:
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Unspecified | Government of NCT of Delhi initiates land acquisition proceedings. |
| Unspecified | Vijay Gupta & Ors. (respondents) purchase the land after the acquisition proceedings. |
| Unspecified | Respondents file a writ petition in the High Court of Delhi. |
| 06.08.2018 | The High Court of Delhi declares the acquisition lapsed. |
| 24 March 2023 | The Supreme Court of India allows the appeal of Government of NCT of Delhi. |
Course of Proceedings
The High Court of Delhi allowed the writ petition filed by the respondents, who were subsequent purchasers of the land. The High Court declared that the land acquisition had lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. The Government of NCT of Delhi then appealed to the Supreme Court, challenging the High Court’s decision.
Legal Framework
The case primarily 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 lapsing of land acquisition proceedings if certain conditions are not met. The Supreme Court also considered previous judgments on the locus standi of subsequent purchasers in challenging land acquisition.
The relevant provision is Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, which 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
Appellant’s Arguments (Government of NCT of Delhi):
- The appellant argued that the original writ petitioners (respondents), being subsequent purchasers, had no locus standi to challenge the acquisition or its lapsing.
- The appellant contended that the High Court erred in relying on the decision in Government (NCT of Delhi) Vs. Manav Dharam Trust and Anr., (2017) 6 SCC 751, which, according to the appellant, was not good law in light of Shiv Kumar & Anr. Vs. Union of India & Ors., (2019) 10 SCC 229.
- The appellant cited the decisions in Shiv Kumar & Anr. Vs. Union of India & Ors., (2019) 10 SCC 229, Delhi Development Authority Vs. Godfrey Phillips (I) Ltd. & Ors., (2022) 8 SCC 771, and Delhi Administration Thr. Secretary, Land and Building Department & Ors. Vs. Pawan Kumar & Ors., (2022) 7 SCC 470, to support the argument that subsequent purchasers lack locus standi.
Respondent’s Arguments (Vijay Gupta & Ors.):
- The respondents claimed relief based on a general power of attorney, will, and receipt, but did not present any valid title deed.
- The respondents argued that the acquisition of the land had lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.
| Main Submission | Sub-Submissions | Party |
|---|---|---|
| Locus Standi of Subsequent Purchasers | Subsequent purchasers have no right to challenge acquisition or lapsing of acquisition. | Appellant |
| Locus Standi of Subsequent Purchasers | Relied on general power of attorney, will, and receipt, but did not present any valid title deed. | Respondent |
| Applicability of Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013 | Acquisition deemed to have lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013. | Respondent |
| Precedent | Decision in Manav Dharam Trust is not good law due to Shiv Kumar & Anr. | Appellant |
| Precedent | Decision in Manav Dharam Trust is applicable to the case. | Respondent |
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
The primary issue before the Supreme Court was:
- Whether subsequent purchasers of land have the locus standi to challenge the acquisition proceedings or the lapsing of such acquisition 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
| Issue | Court’s Decision | Reasoning |
|---|---|---|
| Whether subsequent purchasers have locus standi to challenge acquisition? | No | The Court held that subsequent purchasers do not have the locus standi to challenge the acquisition or lapsing of acquisition, relying on Shiv Kumar & Anr. Vs. Union of India & Ors., (2019) 10 SCC 229, Delhi Development Authority Vs. Godfrey Phillips (I) Ltd. & Ors., (2022) 8 SCC 771, and Delhi Administration Thr. Secretary, Land and Building Department & Ors. Vs. Pawan Kumar & Ors., (2022) 7 SCC 470. |
Authorities
| Authority | Court | How it was used |
|---|---|---|
| Government (NCT of Delhi) Vs. Manav Dharam Trust and Anr., (2017) 6 SCC 751 | Supreme Court of India | The High Court relied on this case, but the Supreme Court held it was not good law. |
| Shiv Kumar & Anr. Vs. Union of India & Ors., (2019) 10 SCC 229 | Supreme Court of India | The Supreme Court relied on this case to establish that subsequent purchasers lack locus standi. |
| Delhi Development Authority Vs. Godfrey Phillips (I) Ltd. & Ors., (2022) 8 SCC 771 | Supreme Court of India | The Supreme Court followed this case to support the view that a subsequent purchaser has no locus standi. |
| Delhi Administration Thr. Secretary, Land and Building Department & Ors. Vs. Pawan Kumar & Ors., (2022) 7 SCC 470 | Supreme Court of India | The Supreme Court followed this case to support the view that a subsequent purchaser has no locus standi. |
Judgment
| Submission | Court’s Treatment |
|---|---|
| Subsequent purchasers have locus standi to challenge acquisition. | Rejected. The Court held that subsequent purchasers have no locus standi to challenge the acquisition or lapsing of acquisition. |
| Acquisition deemed to have lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013. | Rejected. The Court held that since the respondents had no locus standi, the acquisition was not deemed to have lapsed. |
The Court considered the following authorities:
- Government (NCT of Delhi) Vs. Manav Dharam Trust and Anr., (2017) 6 SCC 751: The High Court relied on this case, however, the Supreme Court held that this case was not a good law in view of the decision in Shiv Kumar & Anr. Vs. Union of India & Ors., (2019) 10 SCC 229.
- Shiv Kumar & Anr. Vs. Union of India & Ors., (2019) 10 SCC 229: The Supreme Court relied on this case to establish that subsequent purchasers lack locus standi.
- Delhi Development Authority Vs. Godfrey Phillips (I) Ltd. & Ors., (2022) 8 SCC 771: The Supreme Court followed this case to support the view that a subsequent purchaser has no locus standi.
- Delhi Administration Thr. Secretary, Land and Building Department & Ors. Vs. Pawan Kumar & Ors., (2022) 7 SCC 470: The Supreme Court followed this case to support the view that a subsequent purchaser has no locus standi.
What weighed in the mind of the Court?
The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the principle that only those who have a valid title at the time of acquisition can challenge the acquisition proceedings. The Court emphasized that allowing subsequent purchasers to challenge acquisitions would create uncertainty and potentially disrupt settled land acquisition matters. The Court’s reasoning was heavily based on the precedent set in Shiv Kumar & Anr. Vs. Union of India & Ors., (2019) 10 SCC 229, and subsequent cases.
| Reason | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Precedent of Shiv Kumar & Anr. | 60% |
| Locus Standi of Subsequent Purchasers | 40% |
| Category | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Fact | 20% |
| Law | 80% |
The Court stated:
“a subsequent purchaser has no locus to challenge the acquisition / lapsing of the acquisition.”
“the High Court has materially erred in entertaining the writ petition preferred by the original writ petitioners praying for lapsing of the acquisition.”
“There shall not be any deemed lapse of the acquisition proceedings with respect to the land in question as observed and held by the High Court by the impugned judgment and order.”
The Court unanimously agreed that the High Court had erred in entertaining the writ petition filed by the subsequent purchasers. The judgment was authored by Justice M.R. Shah, with Justice C.T. Ravikumar concurring. There were no dissenting opinions.
The Court’s decision clarifies that the right to challenge land acquisition proceedings belongs to those who held the title at the time of acquisition, not to subsequent purchasers. This ruling reinforces the finality of land acquisition processes and prevents unnecessary litigation by those who acquire land after the acquisition process has already begun.
Key Takeaways
- Subsequent purchasers of land do not have the legal standing to challenge land acquisition proceedings.
- The Supreme Court has reaffirmed the principle that only those with a valid title at the time of acquisition can challenge the proceedings.
- This decision provides clarity and finality to land acquisition processes, preventing challenges by those who acquire land after the acquisition process has begun.
Directions
The Supreme Court quashed and set aside the High Court’s judgment, thereby upholding the land acquisition proceedings.
Development of Law
The ratio decidendi of this case is that subsequent purchasers do not have the locus standi to challenge land acquisition proceedings. This judgment reinforces the position of law established in Shiv Kumar & Anr. Vs. Union of India & Ors., (2019) 10 SCC 229, and other subsequent cases, clarifying that the decision in Government (NCT of Delhi) Vs. Manav Dharam Trust and Anr., (2017) 6 SCC 751 is not a good law.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s decision in Government of NCT of Delhi vs. Vijay Gupta & Ors. clarifies that subsequent purchasers of land lack the legal standing to challenge land acquisition proceedings. This ruling ensures that land acquisition processes are not disrupted by those who acquire land after the proceedings have begun, thereby promoting legal certainty and finality in such matters. The Supreme Court has thus upheld the acquisition and set aside the order of the High Court.