Purchaser Has No Right To Claim Lapsing Of Land Acquisition Proceedings Under Sec 24 RFCTLARR Act : Supreme Court

Click Here To Read/DownloadThe Supreme Court, on May 6, held that a person who purchased a land after it vested with the State under land acquisition proceedings has no right to claim lapsing of the proceedings invoking Section 24 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013."The purchaser has no right to claim lapsing of acquisition proceedings in view of the recent larger Bench judgment of this Court reported as Shiv Kumar & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors wherein the judgment rendered by two-Judge Bench in Manav Dharam Trust was not found to be a good law. Hence, the purchaser has no right to claim a declaration sought for", the Court observed in the case Delhi Development Authority v. Godfrey Phillips (I) Ltd. And Ors.A Bench comprising Justices Hemant Gupta and V. Ramasubramanian allowed appeal filed by Delhi Development Authority (DDA) assailing the order of the Delhi High Court which had allowed writ petition seeking declaration that the acquisition proceedings under that lapsed Land Acquisition Act, 1894 had lapsed under Section 24 of the Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. The High Court had directed the subsequent purchaser of the land to refund the compensation paid to the land owner by DDA in terms of the judgment of the High Court in Balbir Singh v. Union of India And Ors, whereby acquisition was struck down and directions were issued to owners to payback the compensation amount.Noting that Balbir Singh v. Union of India And Ors was not affirmed in a later judgment of the Apex Court in Abhey Ram And Ors. v. Union of India, the Supreme Court was of the opinion that when the original land owner does not object to the acquisition proceedings under Section 5A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, the purchaser cannot seek the benefit of the order of Balbir Singh, which was not available even to the original land owner.Legal BackgroundFor the planned development of Delhi, the intention to acquire land was published vide notification dated 05.11.21980. A similar notification was published on 25.11.1980. Consequently, declarations under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 ("Act") were published on 27.05.1985, 06.06.1985, 07.06.1985 and 26.02.1986 and subsequently, 20.05.1987 onwards the awards were announced.Writ Petition was filed before Delhi High Court challenging the notification dated 20.05.1987 on the ground it had been published after a period of more than three years of the notification under Section 4 of the Act on 25.11.1980. It was dismissed by the High Court. The Special Leave Petition against the same was withdrawn on 12.09.1989. In another set of petitions before the High Court the validity of the declaration under Section 6 of the Act was challenged on the ground that the acquisitions proceedings had lapsed in view of the time limit stipulated by the statute for publication of notification under Section 6. This question was dealt with by the Full Bench of the High Court in Balak Ram Gupta v. Union of India, which excluded the period during which acquisition proceedings were stayed and held the notification was within the time limit. The Division Bench of the High Court in B.R. Gupta v. Union of India And Ors. (Balak Ram-II) quashed the notification issued under Section 6, primarily, on the ground of non-adherence to the principles of natural justice. Another set of Writ petitions were filed assailing the action of the Delhi Administration to take possession even when the notification was quashed. In Balbir Singh v. Union of India And Ors., the High Court held the action to be unsustainable in law and the benefit of the judgment was extended to all landowners. The Union Government's review was subsequently dismissed. The challenge to the same reached the Apex Court in Delhi Development Authority v. Sudan Singh. Largely dismissing the SLP, it held that the benefit of Balak Ram-II would not extend to land in Saidul Azab.Publication of notification dated 07.06.1985 was also challenged for exceeding the statutory time limit. The High Court dismissed the writ petition. In an appeal titled Abhey Ram And Ors. v. Union of India, the Apex Court was urged to examine whether the benefit of quashing the declaration should be extended to the writ petitioners in the present round of litigation. The Court decided in the negative. In Delhi Administration v. Gurdip Singh Uban And Ors, the Apex Court noted that the three-Judge Bench judgment in Abhey Ram is binding in preference to the judgment of the two Judges in Sudan Singh.Factual BackgroundOn 25.09.1990 the original land owners entered an agreement to seek land to the Godfrey Phillips (purchaser). The said agreement mentioned that the Land Acquisition Collector had taken possession and paid compensation to the owners. Later, in terms of the judgment of the Delhi High Court in Balbir Singh, the compensation was to be...

Purchaser Has No Right To Claim Lapsing Of Land Acquisition Proceedings Under Sec 24 RFCTLARR Act : Supreme Court

Sohini Chowdhury

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Sohini Chowdhury

Purchaser Has No Right To Claim Lapsing Of Land Acquisition Proceedings Under Sec 24 RFCTLARR Act : Supreme Court

Sohini Chowdhury

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Sohini Chowdhury

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers