Subsequent Purchaser Of Land Does Not Have Any Right To Claim Lapse Of Acquisition Proceedings- SC Reiterates
The Supreme Court while dealing with an appeal filed by the Delhi Development Authority in a land acquisition case held that as per the settled position of law, the subsequent purchaser of land does not have any right to claim lapse of acquisition proceedings.
The Bench of Justice M.R. Shah and Justice M.M. Sundresh observed –
"In the recent decision of this Court in the case of Delhi Development Authority Vs. Godfrey Phillips (I) Ltd. & Ors., Civil appeal No. 3073 of 2022 after considering the other decisions on the right of the subsequent purchaser to claim lapse of acquisition proceedings, i.e., Meera Sahni Vs. Lieutenant Governor of Delhi & Ors., (2008) 9 SCC 173 and M. Venkatesh & Ors. Vs. Commissioner, Bangalore Development Authority, (2015) 17 SCC 1, it is specifically observed and held that subsequent purchaser has no right to claim lapse of acquisition proceedings."
Advocate Suneita Ojha appeared for the appellant i.e., Delhi Development Authority whereas, Advocate Rameshwar Prasad Goyal represented the respondent.
In this case, the possession of the land in question was taken over in the year 2005 but the compensation was not paid and/or tendered to the recorded owners/petitioners. The notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was issued on November 25, 1980. The acquisition was for a public purpose, namely, the planned development of Delhi by which the large chunk of land in 13 villages of South Delhi including Village Neb Sarai was sought to be acquired. As per the record, the land in question originally is the part of Khasra No. 675 recorded in the name of M/s. Laxmichand Bhagaji Limited - a non-banking company. Therefore, M/s. Laxmichand Bhagaji Limited was the recorded owner. The right in the land in question pursuant to the Agreement to Sell was acquired on May 9, 2005. Thus, the original writ petitioner was claiming the right in the land in question pursuant to this Agreement to Sell.
The Delhi High Court while relying upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Pune Municipal Corporation and Anr. v. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki and Ors., (2014) 3 SCC 183 allowed the writ petition preferred by the respondent declaring that the acquisition with respect to the land in question is deemed to have lapsed by virtue of Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.
The decision of the Supreme Court in the case mentioned above of Pune Municipal Corporation and Anr. relied upon by the High Court while passing the impugned judgment and order was subsequently overruled by the Court in the Constitution Bench decision in the case of Indore Development Authority Vs. Manoharlal and Ors. (2020) 8 SCC 129.
Therefore, being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and order passed by the High Court, the appellants approached the Supreme Court.
The Court noted –
"As per the settled position of law, Agreement to Sell by itself does not confer any right, title, or interest. In any case, the original writ petitioner can be said to be subsequent purchaser and/or has acquired the right subsequently. In the recent decision of this Court in the case of Delhi Development Authority Vs. Godfrey Phillips (I) Ltd. & Ors., Civil appeal No. 3073 of 2022 after considering the other decisions on the right of the subsequent purchaser to claim lapse of acquisition proceedings, i.e., Meera Sahni Vs. Lieutenant Governor of Delhi & Ors., (2008) 9 SCC 173 and M. Venkatesh & Ors. Vs. Commissioner, Bangalore Development Authority, (2015) 17 SCC 1, it is specifically observed and held that subsequent purchaser has no right to claim lapse of acquisition proceedings. Similar view has been expressed by the Larger Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Shiv Kumar & Anr. Vs. Union of India & Ors., (2019) 10 SCC 229."
The Apex Court further held –
"In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, present appeal succeeds. The impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court, declaring that the acquisition with respect to the land in question is deemed to have lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013, is hereby quashed and set aside. Consequently, the writ petition filed by the original writ petitioner before the High Court being Writ Petition (C) No. 2987 of 2016 stands dismissed."
Accordingly, the Court allowed the appeal, disposed of the pending application, and quashed and set aside the decision of the High Court.
Cause Title – Delhi Development Authority v. Asha Jain & Ors.
Click here to read/download the Judgment
