The Supreme Court in the case Govt. of NCT of Delhi Versus Sunil Jain & Ors, wherein the bench comprising of Justice MR Shah and Justice CT Ravi Kumar observed and 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 as stated under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in the Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.
Facts of the Case
In the present civil appeal, the appellants i.e. Govt. of NCT of Delhi had approached the Supreme court, aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order dated 17.07.2017 passed by the Delhi High Court by which the writ petition is allowed by the High Court which being preferred by the private respondents in this civil appeal, who are also the original writ petitioners, it has also been held by the court 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.
Arguments Made By Appellants
The Appellants arguments were mainly two-fold
Firstly, it has been argued before the court by the appellant that the original writ petitioners, which being the subsequent purchasers of the land in question and the same do not derive any right or title to the land at the time of Award and thereafter the acquisitions proceeding cannot be challenged of by the court. Further, it was argued by the appellant that the original petitioners had no locus for filing writ petition and seek any relief with respect to the acquisition. Secondly, it has also been argued by the appellants that the possession of the land in question could not be taken over because of the pending litigation being initiated by the original land owners wherein challenging the acquisition which ended up to this Court upholding the acquisition proceedings.
Court Analysis
The court in the case observed and has held that without even considering the locus of the original writ petitioners to challenge the acquisition/lapsing of the acquisition and solely relying upon the fact that the possession has not been taken over and the compensation is not being 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 been lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013. The court while specifically answering the issue on locus, it has been held by the court that 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 bench headed by three Judge in the case of Shiv Kumar & Anr. Vs. Union of India & Ors, wherein it is specifically observed by the Supreme Court and has held that the subsequent purchaser has no locus for challenging the acquisition and/or lapsing of the acquisition.
On the basis of Merits
It has been held by the court even on the basis of merits that if the acquiring body/ beneficiary was not able to take the possession due to pending litigation in a proceeding which are initiated by the owner of the land, thus, the owner of land 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 because of the pending litigation) still they are entitled to benefit of lapse.
Please read concluding on thedailyguardian.com
