LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a land acquisition lapses under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 if possession is taken, but compensation is not paid, and whether a subsequent purchaser has the locus standi to challenge the acquisition.
CASE TYPE: Land Acquisition
Case Name: Delhi Development Authority vs. Beena Gupta (D) Through LRS. & Ors.
Judgment Date: 16 January 2023
Date of the Judgment: 16 January 2023
Citation: (2023) INSC 30
Judges: M.R. Shah, J. and C.T. Ravikumar, J.
Can a land acquisition be deemed to have lapsed if the authorities have taken possession of the land but haven’t paid compensation? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this critical question in a case involving the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) and a subsequent purchaser of land. The Court clarified the interpretation of Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (the Act 2013) and also addressed the locus standi of a subsequent purchaser to challenge acquisition proceedings. This judgment clarifies the legal position regarding land acquisition and the rights of subsequent purchasers. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Justice M.R. Shah and Justice C.T. Ravikumar, with the opinion authored by Justice M.R. Shah.
Case Background
The case revolves around a land acquisition initiated by the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) in Village Mundaka. The DDA sought to acquire approximately 200 Bighas of land, including a specific plot of 1 Bigha and 2 Biswas (approximately 0.26 acres) in Khasra No. 65/22/1. This plot was initially purchased by Ashok Kumar and Raj Kumar Sharma on June 17, 2005. Their names were subsequently recorded in the revenue records on August 1, 2005. Later, on May 11, 2010, Raj Kumar Sharma sold 275 square yards of this land to Beena Gupta, the original writ petitioner and respondent No. 1 in this case. This sale occurred after the land acquisition proceedings had begun and the award was declared on May 31, 2007. Beena Gupta, therefore, was a subsequent purchaser of the land.
Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 17.06.2005 | Notification issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for acquiring land in Village Mundaka. |
| 17.06.2005 | Ashok Kumar and Raj Kumar Sharma purchased the land in question. |
| 01.08.2005 | Ashok Kumar and Raj Kumar Sharma’s names were mutated in the revenue records. |
| 31.05.2006 | Declaration under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was issued. |
| 31.05.2007 | Award was declared. |
| 15.12.2007 | Possession of the land was taken by the authorities. |
| 11.05.2010 | Raj Kumar Sharma sold 275 sq. yds. of land to Beena Gupta. |
| 01.11.2018 | High Court of Delhi declared the acquisition lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013. |
| 16.01.2023 | Supreme Court set aside the High Court order. |
Course of Proceedings
The original writ petitioner, Beena Gupta, approached the High Court of Delhi seeking a declaration that the land acquisition had lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Act 2013. She argued that compensation for the land had not been paid. The Delhi Development Authority (DDA) countered, stating that possession of the land had been taken on December 15, 2007, and that Beena Gupta, being a subsequent purchaser, had no right to challenge the acquisition. The High Court, however, ruled in favor of Beena Gupta, declaring that the acquisition had lapsed. The DDA then appealed to the Supreme Court.
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 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 Supreme Court also considered the interpretation of this provision as laid down in the Constitution Bench judgment in Indore Development Authority vs. Manoharlal and others (2020) 8 SCC 129.
Arguments
The arguments presented before the Supreme Court were as follows:
- Appellant (Delhi Development Authority):
- The possession of the land was taken on 15.12.2007.
- The original writ petitioner, being a subsequent purchaser, had no locus to challenge the acquisition.
- The High Court erred in declaring that the acquisition had lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Act 2013.
- Relied on the Constitution Bench judgment in Indore Development Authority vs. Manoharlal and others (2020) 8 SCC 129 to argue that the acquisition could not lapse if possession had been taken.
- Respondent (Beena Gupta):
- The compensation for the land was not paid, and therefore, the acquisition should be deemed to have lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Act 2013.
| Main Submission | Sub-Submissions |
|---|---|
| Appellant (Delhi Development Authority) |
|
| Respondent (Beena Gupta) |
|
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues in the judgment. However, the core issues addressed can be summarized as:
- Whether the acquisition of land lapses under Section 24(2) of the Act 2013 if possession has been taken but compensation has not been paid.
- Whether a subsequent purchaser of land has the locus standi to challenge the acquisition proceedings.
Treatment of the Issue by the Court
The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues
| Issue | Court’s Decision | Reasoning |
|---|---|---|
| Whether the acquisition of land lapses under Section 24(2) of the Act 2013 if possession has been taken but compensation has not been paid. | No lapse. | The Supreme Court relied on the Constitution Bench decision in Indore Development Authority vs. Manoharlal, which clarified that the word “or” in Section 24(2) should be read as “nor” or “and.” Therefore, if either possession is taken or compensation is paid, the acquisition does not lapse. |
| Whether a subsequent purchaser of land has the locus standi to challenge the acquisition proceedings. | No locus standi. | The Court relied on its previous decisions in Shiv Kumar & Anr. Vs. Union of India & Ors. (2019) 10 SCC 229, Delhi Administration Through Secretary, Land and Building vs. Pawan Kumar & Ors., Civil Appeal No.3646 of 2022, and Delhi Development Authority versus Godfrey Phillips (I) Ltd. & Ors, Civil Appeal No.3073 of 2022, which held that subsequent purchasers have no right to challenge acquisition proceedings. |
Authorities
The Supreme Court relied on the following authorities:
| Authority | Court | How it was used |
|---|---|---|
| Shiv Kumar & Anr. Vs. Union of India & Ors. (2019) 10 SCC 229 | Supreme Court of India | Established that subsequent purchasers have no locus to challenge acquisition. |
| Delhi Administration Through Secretary, Land and Building vs. Pawan Kumar & Ors., Civil Appeal No.3646 of 2022 | Supreme Court of India | Reiterated that subsequent purchasers have no locus to challenge acquisition. |
| Delhi Development Authority versus Godfrey Phillips (I) Ltd. & Ors, Civil Appeal No.3073 of 2022 | Supreme Court of India | Reiterated that subsequent purchasers have no locus to challenge acquisition. |
| Indore Development Authority versus Manoharlal and others (2020) 8 SCC 129 | Supreme Court of India | Constitution Bench judgment that clarified the interpretation of Section 24(2) of the Act 2013. |
Judgment
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court’s judgment. The Court held that the High Court had erred in entertaining the writ petition filed by the subsequent purchaser. Further, the Court reiterated that the acquisition did not lapse under Section 24(2) of the Act 2013, as possession of the land had been taken.
| Submission by Parties | How it was treated by the Court |
|---|---|
| The possession of the land was taken on 15.12.2007. | Accepted as fact. |
| The original writ petitioner, being a subsequent purchaser, had no locus to challenge the acquisition. | Accepted. The Court held that the High Court erred in entertaining the writ petition of a subsequent purchaser. |
| The High Court erred in declaring that the acquisition had lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Act 2013. | Accepted. The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s judgment. |
| The compensation for the land was not paid, and therefore, the acquisition should be deemed to have lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Act 2013. | Rejected. The Court held that since possession was taken, the acquisition did not lapse. |
The Supreme Court’s view on the authorities:
- Shiv Kumar & Anr. Vs. Union of India & Ors. (2019) 10 SCC 229: The Court followed this authority to reiterate that a subsequent purchaser has no locus standi to challenge the acquisition.
- Delhi Administration Through Secretary, Land and Building vs. Pawan Kumar & Ors., Civil Appeal No.3646 of 2022: The Court followed this authority to reiterate that a subsequent purchaser has no locus standi to challenge the acquisition.
- Delhi Development Authority versus Godfrey Phillips (I) Ltd. & Ors, Civil Appeal No.3073 of 2022: The Court followed this authority to reiterate that a subsequent purchaser has no locus standi to challenge the acquisition.
- Indore Development Authority versus Manoharlal and others (2020) 8 SCC 129: The Court applied the principles laid down in this Constitution Bench judgment to interpret Section 24(2) of the Act 2013, holding that the word “or” should be read as “nor” or “and.”
What weighed in the mind of the Court?
The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the following factors:
- The interpretation of Section 24(2) of the Act 2013 as clarified in Indore Development Authority vs. Manoharlal, which emphasized that the acquisition does not lapse if either possession is taken or compensation is paid.
- The established legal principle that subsequent purchasers have no right to challenge land acquisition proceedings, as per the Court’s previous decisions.
| Sentiment | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Emphasis on Legal Precedent | 40% |
| Interpretation of Section 24(2) | 30% |
| Locus Standi of Subsequent Purchaser | 30% |
| Ratio | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Fact | 30% |
| Law | 70% |
The Court emphasized that “the subsequent purchaser had no locus to challenge the acquisition and/or lapsing of the acquisition under the Act, 2013.” The Court also noted that “the word “or” used in Section 24(2) between possession and compensation has to be read as “nor” or as “and”.” Furthermore, the Court held that “once possession has been taken there is no lapse under Section 24(2).”
The Court did not discuss any alternative interpretations or minority opinions.
Key Takeaways
- A land acquisition does not lapse under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, if possession of the land has been taken, even if compensation has not been paid.
- Subsequent purchasers of land do not have the legal standing (locus standi) to challenge land acquisition proceedings.
- The interpretation of Section 24(2) as laid down in Indore Development Authority vs. Manoharlal is crucial for determining whether an acquisition lapses.
Directions
The Supreme Court did not issue any specific directions in this case, other than setting aside the High Court’s judgment and dismissing the writ petition of the respondent.
Development of Law
The ratio decidendi of this case is that a land acquisition does not lapse under Section 24(2) of the Act 2013 if possession has been taken, and a subsequent purchaser has no locus standi to challenge the acquisition. This judgment reinforces the interpretation of Section 24(2) as laid down in the Constitution Bench judgment in Indore Development Authority vs. Manoharlal and reiterates the position on the rights of subsequent purchasers.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s judgment in Delhi Development Authority vs. Beena Gupta clarifies that a land acquisition does not lapse under Section 24(2) of the Act 2013 if possession has been taken, regardless of whether compensation has been paid. It also reaffirms that subsequent purchasers of land lack the legal standing to challenge acquisition proceedings. This decision provides clarity on the interpretation of Section 24(2) and the rights of subsequent purchasers in land acquisition matters.
Category
Parent Category: Land Acquisition Law
Child Categories: Section 24(2), Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, Locus Standi, Subsequent Purchaser
Parent Category: Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013
Child Category: Section 24(2), Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013
FAQ
Q: What does this judgment mean for landowners whose land was acquired?
A: This judgment clarifies that if the government has taken possession of your land, the acquisition is valid even if you haven’t received compensation. However, you are still entitled to receive compensation as per the law.
Q: I bought land after the acquisition process started. Can I challenge the acquisition?
A: No, this judgment makes it clear that subsequent purchasers do not have the right to challenge the acquisition process.
Q: What is Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation Act?
A: Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, deals with the lapse of land acquisition proceedings if certain conditions are not met. This judgment clarifies that the acquisition does not lapse if possession has been taken.