Sec 24(2) RFCTLARR Act - Benefit Of Lapse Not Available If Delay In Taking Possession Was Due To Pending Litigation: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court bench comprising Justices MR Shah and CT Ravi Kumar has held that delay in taking possession of land because of a pending litigation does not entitle the original owner of the land the benefit of lapse under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. Facts of the Civil Appeal with its Judicial History in Brief The Appellants in the present civil appeal i.e. Govt. of NCT of Delhi had approached the top court feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order dated 17.07.2017 passed by the High Court of Delhi by which the High Court had allowed the writ petition preferred by the private respondents in this civil appeal, who are also the original writ petitioners, and held that the acquisition with respect to the land in question is deemed to have lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. Appellant's ArgumentsThe Appellants arguments were mainly two-fold: Firstly, they argued that the original writ petitioners, being the subsequent purchasers of the land in question, do not derive any right or title to the land at the time of Award and thereafter cannot challenge the acquisition proceedings. Therefore, it was further argued by the Appellants, that the original petitioners had no locus to file the writ petition and seek any relief with respect to the acquisition. Secondly, the Appellants argued that the possession of the land in question could not be taken over due to the pending litigation initiated by the original land owners challenging the acquisition which ended upto this Court upholding the acquisition proceedings.AnalysisThe Court held, "without even considering the locus of the original writ petitioners to challenge the acquisition/lapsing of the acquisition, solely relying upon the fact that the possession has not been taken over and the compensation is not paid the High Court has allowed the writ petition and has declared that the acquisition with respect to the land in question is deemed to have lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013."Specifically answering the issue on locus, the court held, "Now so far as the locus of the original writ petitioners being subsequent purchasers is concerned, the said issue is now not res integra in view of the decision of the three Judge Bench of this Court is the case of Shiv Kumar & Anr. Vs. Union of India & Ors. (2019) 10 SCC 229. wherein the Supreme Court has specifically observed and held that the subsequent purchaser has no locus to challenge the acquisition and/or lapsing of the acquisition."On Merits Even on merits, the Court held, "If the acquiring body/beneficiary was not able to take the possession due to pending litigation in a proceeding initiated by the land owner, thereafter the land owner cannot be permitted to take the benefit/advantage of the same and thereafter to contend that as the possession is not taken over (may be due to the pending litigation) still they are entitled to benefit of lapse."JudgmentThe court finally held, "In view of the above and for the reason stated above, the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court is unsustainable and the same deserves to be quashed and set aside and is accordingly set aside. Consequently, the original writ petition filed by original writ petitioners praying for lapse of the acquisition proceedings accordingly stands dismissed."Case Title: Govt. of NCT of Delhi Versus Sunil Jain & Ors CIVIL APPEAL NO.280 of 2023 (@ SLP (C) No. 1019 of 2023)Citation : 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 36For Appellant(s) Ms. Astha Tyagi, AOR Mr. Dinesh Chander Trehan, Adv. Ms. Diksha Narula, Adv. For Respondent(s) Ms. Sunieta Ojha, AOR Mr. Ishaan Sharma, Adv.RFCTLARR Act - Sec 24(2)- If the acquiring body/beneficiary was not able to take the possession due to pending litigation in a proceeding initiated by the land owner, thereafter the land owner cannot be permitted to take the benefit/advantage of the same and thereafter to contend that as the possession is not taken over (may be due to the pending litigation) still they are entitled to benefit of lapse."RFCTLARR Act - Section 24(2) - Subsequent purchaser has no locus to challenge the acquisition and/or lapsing of the acquisition.Click here to read/download the judgment

Sec 24(2) RFCTLARR Act - Benefit Of Lapse Not Available If Delay In Taking Possession Was Due To Pending Litigation: Supreme Court

Anurag Tiwary

Tags