Delhi Development Authority vs. Dayanand & Ors.
Background
Land had been acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, with possession taken over and handed to the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) on 26.11.2012. A subsequent purchaser of the land filed a writ petition claiming the acquisition should be deemed lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act because full compensation had not been paid. The Delhi High Court agreed and declared the acquisition lapsed, overruling the DDA's objection that a subsequent purchaser had no standing (locus) to raise such a challenge. The DDA appealed to the Supreme Court.
Decision Breakdown
The Supreme Court held, first, that the writ petition itself was not maintainable because a subsequent purchaser has no locus to claim lapsing of acquisition proceedings under Section 24(2), following its own recent rulings in DDA v. Godfrey Philips (I) Ltd. and Delhi Administration v. Pawan Kumar. Second, and independently, the Court held that on merits too the High Court's order could not stand, since the Constitution Bench decision in Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal (2020) requires BOTH non-possession AND non-payment of compensation for five years for a deemed lapse: here possession had admittedly already been taken, so non-payment of compensation alone did not cause a lapse. The High Court's judgment was quashed and the original writ petition was dismissed, though the Court clarified that the recorded owner/person entitled to compensation could still claim it in accordance with law whenever they approached for it.
Lesson Learnt
A person who buys land after acquisition proceedings have already begun (a "subsequent purchaser") generally cannot use the courts to challenge or claim a lapse of that acquisition: that right belongs to the original recorded owner, and separately, possession once lawfully taken forecloses a claim of deemed lapse even if compensation remains unpaid.