LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a subsequent purchaser of land can challenge the acquisition of that land under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.
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 47
Judges: M.R. Shah, J., C.T. Ravikumar, J.
Can a person who buys land after it has been notified for acquisition claim that the acquisition has lapsed? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question, clarifying the rights of subsequent purchasers in land acquisition cases. This judgment clarifies the interpretation of Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, particularly concerning the rights of those who purchase land after the acquisition process has begun. The bench comprised Justices M.R. Shah and C.T. Ravikumar, with the judgment authored by Justice M.R. Shah.
Case Background
The case revolves around land acquisition proceedings initiated by the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) in Village Mundaka. On 17 June 2005, a notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, was issued to acquire approximately 200 Bighas of land. A declaration under Section 6 of the same Act followed on 31 May 2006. The specific land in dispute is 1 Bigha and 2 Biswas from Khasra No. 65/22/1.
This land was initially purchased by Ashok Kumar and Raj Kumar Sharma on 17 June 2005, with their names being recorded in the revenue records on 1 August 2005. Subsequently, on 11 May 2010, Raj Kumar Sharma sold 275 sq. yrds. of his share to Beena Gupta, the original writ petitioner and respondent no. 1 in this appeal. This sale occurred after the land acquisition process had begun and after the award was declared on 31 May 2007.
Beena Gupta then filed a writ petition before the High Court of Delhi, claiming 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, because compensation had not been paid. The DDA argued that possession of the land was taken on 15 December 2007 and that as a subsequent purchaser, Beena Gupta had no right to challenge the acquisition.
Timeline:
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 17 June 2005 | Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, issued for acquiring land in Village Mundaka. |
| 17 June 2005 | Ashok Kumar and Raj Kumar Sharma purchased the land in question. |
| 01 August 2005 | Ashok Kumar and Raj Kumar Sharma were recorded as owners in the revenue records. |
| 31 May 2006 | Declaration under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, was issued. |
| 31 May 2007 | Award was declared. |
| 15 December 2007 | DDA claims possession of the land was taken. |
| 11 May 2010 | Raj Kumar Sharma sold a portion of the land to Beena Gupta. |
| 01 November 2018 | High Court of Delhi ruled in favor of Beena Gupta, declaring the acquisition lapsed. |
| 16 January 2023 | Supreme Court of India overturned the High Court’s decision. |
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 (the Act of 2013), which deals with the lapsing of land acquisition proceedings. This section 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 judgment also references the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, particularly Sections 4 and 6, which pertain to the notification and declaration of land acquisition, and Section 16, which deals with the taking of possession. The Supreme Court also considered Section 31 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, which deals with the payment of compensation and Section 34 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 which deals with interest on compensation.
Arguments
Arguments by the Delhi Development Authority (Appellant):
- The DDA contended that the High Court erred in entertaining the writ petition of Beena Gupta, as she was a subsequent purchaser of the land, acquiring her rights after the land acquisition proceedings had commenced and the award was declared.
- The DDA argued that the possession of the land in question was taken on 15 December 2007, supported by a panchnama.
- The DDA relied on the Supreme Court’s 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 a subsequent purchaser has no locus standi to challenge the acquisition or claim a lapse of acquisition under the Act of 2013.
- The DDA also cited the Constitution Bench judgment in Indore Development Authority versus Manoharlal and others (2020) 8 SCC 129 to assert that the acquisition could not be deemed to have lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Act of 2013.
Arguments by Beena Gupta (Respondent):
- Beena Gupta, the original writ petitioner, argued that the acquisition of the land in question should be deemed to have lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Act of 2013.
- Her primary contention was that the compensation for the land had not been paid.
Submissions Table
| Main Submission | Sub-Submission | Party |
|---|---|---|
| Locus Standi of Subsequent Purchaser | Subsequent purchaser has no right to challenge acquisition | Delhi Development Authority |
| Acquisition proceedings initiated before purchase | Delhi Development Authority | |
| Award declared before purchase | Delhi Development Authority | |
| Lapsing of Acquisition | Compensation not paid | Beena Gupta |
| Acquisition should be deemed to have lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Act of 2013 | Beena Gupta | |
| Possession of Land | Possession of land was taken on 15 December 2007 | Delhi Development Authority |
| Supported by panchnama | Delhi Development Authority |
Innovativeness of the argument: The DDA’s argument was innovative in the sense that it relied on the settled position of law that a subsequent purchaser has no locus standi to challenge the acquisition. This was a departure from the usual arguments made by landowners.
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court:
The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues in a separate section. However, the core issue before the court was:
- Whether the High Court was right in declaring that the acquisition with respect to the land in question is deemed to have lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Act of 2013.
- Whether a subsequent purchaser has the locus standi to challenge the acquisition of land.
Treatment of the Issue by the Court:
The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues
| Issue | How the Court Dealt with the Issue |
|---|---|
| Whether the High Court was right in declaring that the acquisition with respect to the land in question is deemed to have lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Act of 2013. | The Supreme Court held that the High Court’s decision was incorrect. The Court relied on the Constitution Bench judgment in Indore Development Authority versus Manoharlal and others (2020) 8 SCC 129, which clarified that acquisition does not lapse if either possession has been taken or compensation has been paid. In this case, the DDA claimed possession was taken in 2007. |
| Whether a subsequent purchaser has the locus standi to challenge the acquisition of land. | The Supreme Court ruled that a subsequent purchaser does not have the locus standi to challenge the acquisition. The Court relied on the judgments 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. |
Authorities:
The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:
| Authority | Court | How the Authority was used |
|---|---|---|
| Shiv Kumar & Anr. Vs. Union of India & Ors. (2019) 10 SCC 229 | Supreme Court of India | The court followed this case to hold that a subsequent purchaser has no locus to challenge the acquisition. |
| Delhi Administration Through Secretary, Land and Building vs. Pawan Kumar & Ors., Civil Appeal No.3646 of 2022 | Supreme Court of India | The court followed this case to hold that a subsequent purchaser has no locus to challenge the acquisition. |
| Delhi Development Authority versus Godfrey Phillips (I) Ltd. & Ors, Civil Appeal No.3073 of 2022 | Supreme Court of India | The court followed this case to hold that a subsequent purchaser has no locus to challenge the acquisition. |
| Indore Development Authority versus Manoharlal and others (2020) 8 SCC 129 | Supreme Court of India | The court relied on this Constitution Bench judgment to interpret Section 24(2) of the Act of 2013, holding that acquisition does not lapse if either possession is taken or compensation is paid. |
| Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 | Statute | The court referred to this section to highlight the initial notification for land acquisition. |
| Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 | Statute | The court referred to this section to highlight the declaration of land acquisition. |
| Section 16 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 | Statute | The court referred to this section to highlight the taking of possession of land. |
| Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 | Statute | The court interpreted this section to determine whether the acquisition had lapsed. |
| Section 31 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 | Statute | The court referred to this section to highlight the payment of compensation. |
| Section 34 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 | Statute | The court referred to this section to highlight the interest on compensation. |
Judgment
How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?
| Submission | How it was treated by the Court |
|---|---|
| The High Court erred in entertaining the writ petition of Beena Gupta, as she was a subsequent purchaser. | The Court agreed with this submission, holding that a subsequent purchaser has no locus standi to challenge the acquisition. |
| The possession of the land in question was taken on 15 December 2007. | The Court accepted this submission, noting that the DDA claimed possession was taken in 2007, which meant that the acquisition could not lapse under Section 24(2) of the Act of 2013. |
| The acquisition of the land in question should be deemed to have lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Act of 2013. | The Court rejected this submission, holding that the acquisition had not lapsed as possession was taken. |
| Compensation for the land had not been paid. | The Court noted that even if compensation had not been paid, the acquisition would not lapse if possession had been taken. |
How each authority was viewed by the Court?
- The Supreme Court followed Shiv Kumar & Anr. Vs. Union of India & Ors. (2019) 10 SCC 229* to conclude that a subsequent purchaser has no locus standi to challenge the land acquisition.
- The Supreme Court followed Delhi Administration Through Secretary, Land and Building vs. Pawan Kumar & Ors., Civil Appeal No.3646 of 2022* to conclude that a subsequent purchaser has no locus standi to challenge the land acquisition.
- The Supreme Court followed Delhi Development Authority versus Godfrey Phillips (I) Ltd. & Ors, Civil Appeal No.3073 of 2022* to conclude that a subsequent purchaser has no locus standi to challenge the land acquisition.
- The Supreme Court relied on the Constitution Bench judgment in Indore Development Authority versus Manoharlal and others (2020) 8 SCC 129* to interpret Section 24(2) of the Act of 2013, holding that the acquisition does not lapse if either possession is taken or compensation is paid.
What weighed in the mind of the Court?
The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the principle that a subsequent purchaser of land, who buys the property after the initiation of acquisition proceedings, does not have the right to challenge the acquisition. The Court emphasized that the High Court had erred in entertaining the writ petition of Beena Gupta, who was a subsequent purchaser. The Court also emphasized that the acquisition proceedings would not lapse if either possession was taken or compensation was paid. The Court found that the DDA had taken possession of the land in 2007, hence the acquisition did not lapse.
Sentiment Analysis of Reasons Given by the Supreme Court
| Reason | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Locus Standi of Subsequent Purchaser | 40% |
| Interpretation of Section 24(2) of the Act of 2013 | 30% |
| Possession of Land | 30% |
Fact:Law Ratio
| Category | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Fact | 30% |
| Law | 70% |
The Court’s reasoning was primarily based on legal principles and precedents, with a lesser emphasis on the specific facts of the case. This is reflected in the higher percentage attributed to legal considerations (70%) compared to factual considerations (30%).
Logical Reasoning:
The Supreme Court rejected the High Court’s interpretation of Section 24(2) of the Act of 2013. The court held that the High Court erred in entertaining the writ petition of Beena Gupta, who was a subsequent purchaser, and in declaring that the acquisition had lapsed. The Supreme Court emphasized that a subsequent purchaser does not have the locus standi to challenge the acquisition. The court also held that the acquisition would not lapse if either possession was taken or compensation was paid. The court found that the DDA had taken possession of the land in 2007, hence the acquisition did not lapse.
The Court’s reasoning is supported by the following quotes from the judgment:
“the subsequent purchaser had no locus to challenge the acquisition and/or lapsing of the acquisition under the Act, 2013.”
“The deemed lapse of land acquisition proceedings under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act takes place where due to inaction of authorities for five years or more prior to commencement of the said Act, the possession of land has not been taken nor compensation has been paid. In other words, in case possession has been taken, compensation has not been paid then there is no lapse.”
“Once award has been passed on taking possession under Section 16 of the 1894 Act, the land vests in State there is no divesting provided under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act, as once possession has been taken there is no lapse under Section 24(2).”
Key Takeaways:
- A subsequent purchaser of land, who buys the property after the initiation of acquisition proceedings, does not have the right to challenge the acquisition.
- Land acquisition proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, do not lapse under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, if either possession of the land has been taken or compensation has been paid.
- The Supreme Court has clarified that the word “or” in Section 24(2) between possession and compensation has to be read as “nor” or “and.”
- This judgment reinforces the principle that the state’s acquisition of land is not easily reversible, particularly by those who acquire property after the acquisition process has begun.
Directions:
The Supreme Court quashed and set aside the High Court’s judgment and dismissed the original writ petition filed by Beena Gupta. The appeal of the Delhi Development Authority was allowed.
Development of Law:
The ratio decidendi of this case is that a subsequent purchaser of land has no locus standi to challenge the acquisition of that land. Also, the acquisition proceedings do not lapse under Section 24(2) of the Act of 2013 if either the possession of the land has been taken or compensation has been paid. This judgment reinforces the settled position of law that a subsequent purchaser cannot challenge the acquisition. There is no change in the previous position of law.
Conclusion:
The Supreme Court’s judgment in Delhi Development Authority vs. Beena Gupta clarifies that a subsequent purchaser of land cannot challenge the acquisition of that land under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. The Court also held that acquisition proceedings do not lapse if either possession has been taken or compensation has been paid. This decision reinforces the state’s power to acquire land for public purposes and limits the ability of subsequent purchasers to challenge such acquisitions.