Supreme Court Upholds Land Acquisition: Subsequent Purchasers Lack Locus Standi in Land Acquisition Cases (2023)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: March 13, 2023
Citation: Civil Appeal No. 1522 of 2023 (@ SLP (C) NO. 4529 OF 2023) (@ DIARY NO. 8413 OF 2022)
Judges: M.R. Shah, J. and C.T. Ravikumar, J.

Can a person who buys land after the government has already started the process to acquire it challenge that acquisition? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question, clarifying that subsequent purchasers do not have the legal standing to contest land acquisition proceedings. This judgment settles a crucial point regarding who can challenge land acquisition and when. The bench comprised Justices M.R. Shah and C.T. Ravikumar.

Case Background

The case revolves around land acquisition proceedings initiated by the Government of NCT of Delhi. The original owners of the land were Parvati Jain, Lajja Ram, and D.L. Parti. The government issued a notification for acquisition under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 on November 25, 1980. Following this, a declaration under Section 6 was made on June 7, 1985, and the award under Section 11 was published on July 9, 1987. M/s. Beads Properties Pvt. Ltd., the respondent, purchased the land in 1990, after the initial notification under Section 4 was issued. The respondent then challenged the acquisition, claiming it had lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The High Court of Delhi allowed the writ petition filed by M/s. Beads Properties Pvt. Ltd., declaring 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 appealed this decision to the Supreme Court, arguing that the respondent, being a subsequent purchaser, had no right to challenge the acquisition. The Supreme Court noted that the original owners had never challenged the acquisition. The Supreme Court set aside the High Court order.

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, which deals with the lapsing of land acquisition proceedings. However, the Supreme Court did not delve into the interpretation of this provision. The court focused on the locus standi of the subsequent purchaser to challenge the acquisition proceedings. The Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was also referred to, specifically Sections 4, 6, and 11, which pertain to the notification, declaration, and award of land acquisition, respectively.

Arguments

Arguments by the Appellants (Government of NCT of Delhi):

• The appellants argued that the original owners of the land, Parvati Jain, Lajja Ram, and D.L. Parti, never challenged the acquisition proceedings.
• They contended that M/s. Beads Properties Pvt. Ltd., being a subsequent purchaser (having bought the land in 1990 after the Section 4 notification in 1980), had no right to challenge the acquisition.
• The appellants relied on prior Supreme Court decisions to support their argument that a subsequent purchaser lacks the locus standi to challenge acquisition or its lapsing.

Arguments by the Respondent (M/s. Beads Properties Pvt. Ltd.):

• The respondent, as the original writ petitioner before the High Court, had argued 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 respondent had successfully convinced the High Court that the acquisition had lapsed.

Submissions Table:

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

• Whether the subsequent purchaser has a locus to challenge the acquisition/lapsing of the acquisition.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

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

Authorities

The Supreme Court relied on the following cases:

Judgment

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

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The Supreme Court relied on Shiv Kumar & Anr. Vs. Union of India & Ors., (2019) 10 SCC 229 and Delhi Development Authority Vs. Godfrey Phillips (I) Ltd. & Ors., Civil Appeal No. 3073 of 2022, stating that these cases specifically held that a subsequent purchaser does not have the locus standi to challenge land acquisition or its lapsing.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the principle that a subsequent purchaser cannot challenge land acquisition proceedings. The court emphasized that the original owners did not challenge the acquisition, and therefore, the subsequent purchaser lacked the legal standing to do so. The court’s reasoning was based on the established legal principle that a subsequent purchaser buys the land with the knowledge of the existing acquisition proceedings. The Court’s sentiment was that allowing subsequent purchasers to challenge acquisition would create uncertainty and instability in land acquisition processes.

Fact:Law Ratio

Logical Reasoning:

The court did not delve into the merits of the claim that the acquisition had lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act, as it deemed the respondent lacked the locus standi to raise the issue.

The Supreme Court quoted from its prior judgments, emphasizing that a subsequent purchaser cannot challenge the acquisition. The court stated:

“…the subsequent purchaser has no locus to challenge the acquisition / lapsing of the acquisition.”

The Court also noted:

“…the original owners / recorded owners did not challenge the acquisition at all.”

The court concluded:

“Under the circumstances, the High Court has erred in entertaining the writ petition preferred by the respondent No.1 herein – original writ petitioner being a subsequent purchaser…”

Key Takeaways

• A subsequent purchaser of land, who buys the property after the initial notification for acquisition, does not have the legal standing to challenge the acquisition proceedings.
• This decision reinforces the principle that only the original owners, or those with a direct interest at the time of the acquisition, can challenge the process.
• The judgment aims to ensure stability and certainty in land acquisition processes by preventing subsequent purchasers from disrupting acquisitions.

Directions

The Supreme Court set aside the judgment of the High Court and declared that there would be no deemed lapse of the acquisition proceedings with respect to the land in question.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of the case is that a subsequent purchaser of land lacks the locus standi to challenge the land acquisition proceedings. This judgment reaffirms the established legal position on this matter, as previously held in Shiv Kumar & Anr. Vs. Union of India & Ors., (2019) 10 SCC 229 and Delhi Development Authority Vs. Godfrey Phillips (I) Ltd. & Ors., Civil Appeal No. 3073 of 2022. There is no change in the previous position of law, rather, the Supreme Court has reaffirmed the settled position.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision in Government of NCT of Delhi and Anr. vs. M/s. Beads Properties Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. clarifies that subsequent purchasers of land cannot challenge land acquisition proceedings. This ruling ensures that the process of land acquisition is not disrupted by those who purchase the land after the acquisition process has begun. The judgment reaffirms the principle of locus standi, emphasizing that only those with a direct interest at the time of acquisition can challenge the proceedings.

Category

Parent Category: Land Acquisition Act, 1894

Child Categories:

• Section 4, Land Acquisition Act, 1894
• Section 6, Land Acquisition Act, 1894
• Section 11, Land Acquisition Act, 1894
• Locus Standi
• Subsequent Purchaser

Parent Category: Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013

Child Categories:

• Section 24, Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013

FAQ

Q: What is locus standi in the context of land acquisition?
A: Locus standi refers to the right or capacity to bring a legal action or appear in a court. In land acquisition, it means having a sufficient connection to and harm from the action to be able to challenge it.

Q: If I buy land after the government has issued a notification for acquisition, can I challenge the acquisition?
A: No, according to this Supreme Court judgment, a subsequent purchaser does not have the right to challenge the acquisition proceedings.

Q: What should I do if I am considering buying land that might be subject to acquisition?
A: It is crucial to conduct thorough due diligence and check for any existing acquisition notifications before purchasing land. A subsequent purchase will not give you the right to challenge the acquisition.

Q: What does it mean for an acquisition to “lapse”?
A: Lapsing of acquisition refers to the situation where the acquisition proceedings are deemed to have ended because certain conditions or timelines have not been met, as specified under the law. However, the court did not delve into the merits of this claim by the respondent.