Delhi Development Authority vs Damini Wadhwa & Ors.
Background
Land in Village Maidan Garhi, Delhi was notified for acquisition way back in 1980, with the Section 6 declaration issued in 1985 and the Collector's award in 1987, followed by decades of litigation by various landowners. Respondent Damini Wadhwa, who claimed an interest in a portion of this land through an Agreement to Sell dated 22.05.2016: i.e., decades after the original acquisition proceedings began: filed a writ petition claiming the acquisition had lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act (which deems old acquisitions lapsed if possession was not taken or compensation not paid/deposited for five years). The Delhi High Court agreed and declared the acquisition lapsed; the DDA appealed to the Supreme Court.
Decision Breakdown
The Supreme Court held that Wadhwa, having acquired her interest in the land only in 2016, long after the 1980 acquisition notification, was merely a "subsequent purchaser," and under settled Supreme Court precedent (Godfrey Phillips, Meera Sahni, M. Venkatesh, and the larger bench in Shiv Kumar) a subsequent purchaser has no legal standing to claim lapse of acquisition proceedings under Section 24(2). The Court also held that, even on the merits, the High Court had erred: applying the Constitution Bench ruling in Indore Development Authority, non-possession or non-payment of compensation caused by pending litigation over the land cannot count as a ground for deemed lapse. The Court therefore quashed the High Court's order and dismissed the original writ petition, allowing DDA's appeal with no costs.
Lesson Learnt
A person who buys or acquires an interest in land only after it has already been notified for government acquisition cannot later claim that the acquisition has lapsed: that right belongs only to those who held an interest in the land at the time of acquisition, and delays caused by ongoing litigation do not count against the acquiring authority.