The Supreme Court in a bench comprising Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Rajesh Bindal dismissed a claim asserting the lapse of acquisition under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, which was predicated on the post-notification purchase of the land. The Court, after careful consideration of the facts and legal provisions, firmly held that such a claim could not be upheld.
Brief Facts of the Case:
A Civil Appeal was filed before the Supreme Court challenging the impugned order of the High Court of Delhi.
Brief Background of the Case:
The writ petition was filed by Respondent No. 1, invoking Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as "the 2013 Act"). The High Court allowed the petition and concluded that the acquisition in question had lapsed. This was based on the grounds that neither the possession of the land was taken nor the compensation for the land was paid.
Contentions of the Appellants:
The appellant argued that the original owner of the land challenged the acquisition through. However, this petition was dismissed for non-prosecution. Respondent No. 1 claimed to have purchased the land from the original owner after obtaining a no-objection certificate under Section 8 of the Delhi Lands (Restrictions on Transfer) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as “Act, 1972”). The purchase was made through a sale deed. Subsequently, Respondent No. 1 filed another writ petition challenging the acquisition after acquiring the land. This petition was dismissed, allowing respondent No.1 to file a review/recall of the order dated, which dismissed the original owner's writ petition challenging the land acquisition. The application for review/recall was also dismissed. The appellant argued that a subsequent buyer of the land after the completion of the acquisition process does not have the right to invoke Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act to claim that the acquisition has lapsed. Therefore, the writ petition itself was deemed not maintainable and should be dismissed. The appellant requested the Court to set aside the High Court's order.
Contentions of the Respondents:
The respondents argued that, neither the compensation for the land nor the possession of the land has been provided. Respondent No. 1 has already built and resided in a house on the land for over ten years. They regularly pay house tax as assessed by the authorities. Disrupting their possession at this stage would be extremely harsh, as it would leave them without shelter. The respondents further emphasized that the sale deed for the land was registered with the necessary permission from the authorities under the provisions of the Act, 1972. Therefore, the respondent should not be deprived of his possession at this point. The respondent requested the Court to dismiss the appeal.
Observations of the Court:
The Court analyzed that the question of whether a subsequent purchaser can invoke Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act to claim that the acquisition has lapsed, the law has been settled. In the case of Shiv Kumar v. Union of India and Others, a three-judge bench of the Supreme Court held that a person with no title in the land cannot enforce and claim rights under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act. The provisions of the 2013 Act do not authorize a purchaser after Section 4 to question the proceedings and seek a declaration under Section 24. The Act aims to provide just and fair compensation to affected families and facilitate the rehabilitation and resettlement of those affected by land acquisition.
The Supreme Court held that it is established on record that the notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was issued on November 25, 1980, while the sale deed in favour of Respondent No. 1 was registered on June 18, 2003.
Furthermore, the Land Acquisition Collector's affidavit in the High Court reveals that respondent No.1 purchased the land from Behl Brothers through a registered sale deed, which itself occurred after the issuance of the notification under Section 4 on November 25, 1980. Therefore, the respondent does not have the right to claim that the acquisition has lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act by invoking the jurisdiction of the High Court.
The decision of the Court:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal while dismissing the writ petition filed by the respondent in the High Court. The Apex Court also quashed the impugned order of the High Court.
Case Title: Government of NCT of Delhi Vs. Ravinder Kumar Jain
Case No.: Civil Appeal No. 3621 of 2023
Citation: 2023 Latest Caselaw 498 SC
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Abhay S. Oka and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal
Advocates for Petitioner: Mr. Chandra Prakash, AOR, Mr. Vivek Singh, Adv., Mr. C.P. Rajwar, Adv., Ms. Somi Sharma, Adv. and Mr. Ramesh Kumar, Adv.
Advocates for Respondent: M/s Mitter & Mitter Co., AOR and Mr. Nitin Mishra, AOR
Read Judgement @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
