Supreme Court Upholds Land Acquisition, Denies Relief to Subsequent Purchaser: Delhi Development Authority vs. Damini Wadhwa (2022)

Date of the Judgment: November 4, 2022

Citation: Civil Appeal No. 7962 of 2022

Judges: M.R. Shah, J. and M.M. Sundresh, J.

Can a person who buys land after acquisition proceedings have begun claim that the acquisition has lapsed because the government didn’t take possession or pay compensation? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this issue, clarifying the rights of subsequent purchasers in land acquisition cases. This judgment clarifies that a subsequent purchaser cannot claim a lapse in acquisition proceedings under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. The bench comprised Justices M.R. Shah and M.M. Sundresh, with Justice M.R. Shah authoring the judgment.

Case Background

The Delhi Development Authority (DDA) initiated acquisition of agricultural lands, including the land in question, in Village Maidan Garhi, Delhi. The process began with a notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 on November 25, 1980. A declaration under Section 6 of the same Act followed on June 7, 1985, and the Collector declared the award on June 17, 1987.

Several landowners challenged these acquisition proceedings through writ petitions, which led to interim protection orders from the High Court. These legal challenges went through multiple rounds of litigation. Initially, the High Court dismissed the writ petitions on November 25, 2004, upholding the acquisition. However, a difference of opinion among the judges led to a referral to a third judge, which ultimately resulted in the cases being decided in favor of the landowners on May 11, 2007, quashing the Section 6 notification and subsequent acquisition proceedings. This decision was later overturned by the Supreme Court in *Om Parkash vs. Union of India and Ors., (2010) 4 SCC 17*, which upheld the acquisition proceedings.

Following these events, Damini Wadhwa, the original writ petitioner and respondent No. 1, filed a writ petition before the High Court claiming 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, as neither compensation had been paid nor possession taken.

Timeline:

Arguments

Arguments by the Appellant (Delhi Development Authority):

• The DDA argued that the original writ petitioner, Damini Wadhwa, had no locus standi (right to bring action) to file the writ petition. They contended that her claim was based on an Agreement to Sell dated May 22, 2016, which was executed long after the acquisition process began in 1980.
• The DDA cited the Supreme Court’s decision in *Delhi Development Authority vs. Godfrey Phillips (I) Ltd. & Ors.*, stating that a subsequent purchaser cannot claim a lapse of acquisition proceedings under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.
• The DDA also argued that the High Court failed to consider that substantial possession of the acquired land had been taken. The DDA admitted that possession of some small parcels of land could not be taken due to pending litigations. They relied on the Supreme Court’s judgment in *Indore Development Authority vs. Manoharlal and Ors.*, which stated that if possession could not be taken due to pending litigation, Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013 would not be attracted.

Arguments by the Respondent (Damini Wadhwa):

• The original writ petitioner argued that since neither possession of the land was taken nor compensation paid, Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013, should apply, leading to a deemed lapse of the acquisition.
• The respondent contended that the High Court correctly allowed the writ petition.

Submissions Table

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues in a separate section. However, the main issues that the court addressed were:

1. Whether the original writ petitioner, being a subsequent purchaser, had the right to claim a lapse of acquisition proceedings under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013.
2. Whether the High Court was correct in declaring that the acquisition had lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013, given that possession of some land could not be taken due to pending litigations.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

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

Authorities

Cases Relied Upon by the Court:

• *Om Parkash Vs. Union of India and Ors., (2010) 4 SCC 17* – Supreme Court: Upheld the acquisition proceedings related to the land in question.
• *Delhi Development Authority Vs. Godfrey Phillips (I) Ltd. & Ors.*, Civil appeal No. 3073 of 2022 – Supreme Court: Held that a subsequent purchaser is not entitled to claim a lapse of acquisition proceedings under the Act, 2013.
• *Meera Sahni Vs. Lieutenant Governor of Delhi & Ors., (2008) 9 SCC 173* – Supreme Court: Discussed the rights of subsequent purchasers in acquisition cases.
• *M. Venkatesh & Ors. Vs. Commissioner, Bangalore Development Authority, (2015) 17 SCC 1* – Supreme Court: Discussed the rights of subsequent purchasers in acquisition cases.
• *Shiv Kumar & Anr. Vs. Union of India & Ors., (2019) 10 SCC 229* – Supreme Court: Larger Bench judgment holding that a subsequent purchaser has no right to claim lapse of acquisition proceedings.
• *Indore Development Authority Vs. Manoharlal and Ors. (2020) 8 SCC 129* – Supreme Court: Held that if possession could not be taken due to pending litigations, Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013 is not attracted.

Legal Provisions Considered by the Court:

• Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894: Notification for acquisition of land.
• Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894: Declaration of intended acquisition.
• Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013: Provision for deemed lapse of acquisition if possession not taken or compensation not paid.

Authorities Table

Judgment

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The Court followed *Delhi Development Authority Vs. Godfrey Phillips (I) Ltd. & Ors.* [Civil appeal No. 3073 of 2022], which held that a subsequent purchaser cannot claim a lapse of acquisition proceedings.
• The Court followed *Shiv Kumar & Anr. Vs. Union of India & Ors.* [(2019) 10 SCC 229], a Larger Bench judgment, which also held that a subsequent purchaser has no right to claim lapse of acquisition proceedings.
• The Court followed *Indore Development Authority Vs. Manoharlal and Ors.* [(2020) 8 SCC 129], stating that Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013 is not attracted if possession could not be taken due to pending litigations.

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 claim a lapse of acquisition proceedings. The Court emphasized that the original writ petitioner acquired interest in the land after the acquisition process had already begun, and therefore, she could not claim the benefits under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013. The Court also considered the fact that the delay in taking possession was due to pending litigations, which, according to precedent, does not trigger the lapse provision under Section 24(2).

Fact:Law Ratio

Logical Reasoning:

The Court considered the argument that the possession was not taken, but it rejected the argument because the reason for the same was the pending litigations. The Court relied on its previous judgment in *Indore Development Authority vs. Manoharlal and Ors.*, which stated that if possession could not be taken due to pending litigation, Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013 would not be attracted.

The Court quoted from *Shiv Kumar & Anr. Vs. Union of India & Ors.*, stating, “It is clear that the purchaser of land subsequent to a notification under Section 4 of the Act, has no locus standi to challenge the acquisition proceedings. The sale of land after the issuance of a notification under Section 4 of the Act is void against the State.”

The Court also stated, “Even otherwise on merits also, the High Court has erred in declaring / ordering lapse of acquisition under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013. The High Court has not at all appreciated the fact that the large parcels of the lands were acquired.”

The Court further stated, “Under the circumstances and as observed and held by this Court in the case of Indore Development Authority (supra), there cannot be any lapse of acquisition under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013 on the ground of possession could not be taken over by the authority and/or the compensation could not be deposited / tendered due to the pending litigations.”

Key Takeaways

• A person who purchases land after the initiation of acquisition proceedings does not have the right to 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.
• If the government is unable to take possession of the land due to pending litigation, the acquisition will not lapse under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013.
• This judgment reinforces the principle that subsequent purchasers cannot challenge acquisitions initiated before their purchase.

Directions

The Supreme Court quashed and set aside the High Court’s judgment and order dated July 25, 2017, and dismissed the writ petition filed by the original writ petitioner.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that a subsequent purchaser of land cannot claim 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 judgment reinforces the existing legal position established in previous Supreme Court decisions, such as *Delhi Development Authority vs. Godfrey Phillips (I) Ltd. & Ors.* and *Shiv Kumar & Anr. Vs. Union of India & Ors.*, and clarifies that the provision for deemed lapse of acquisition does not apply when the delay in taking possession is due to pending litigations. There is no change in the previous positions of law.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal filed by the Delhi Development Authority (DDA), setting aside the High Court’s decision. The Court held that the original writ petitioner, being a subsequent purchaser, had no right to claim a lapse of acquisition proceedings under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. The Court also reiterated that if possession could not be taken due to pending litigations, Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013 would not be attracted. This judgment clarifies the rights of subsequent purchasers in land acquisition cases and reinforces the existing legal principles.