Delhi Development Authority vs Manpreet Singh & Ors.
Background
Land in Delhi was notified for acquisition under the old Land Acquisition Act, 1894 in November 1980 and the award was passed in June 1987. Manpreet Singh, who was not the recorded owner at the time of the award, claimed rights in the land through an assignment deed of 2015 (with his counsel accepting he acquired the interest around 2018), i.e. after the 2013 Act came into force. He filed a writ petition in the Delhi High Court, which in January 2018 declared that the acquisition was deemed to have lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act. The DDA (the beneficiary of the acquisition) and the Delhi Government (the acquiring body) appealed to the Supreme Court.
Decision Breakdown
The Court framed the only question as whether a subsequent purchaser has standing ("locus") to challenge the acquisition or claim that it has lapsed. It held that this is settled by the three-judge decision in Shiv Kumar vs Union of India (2019), which disapproved the earlier contrary view in Manav Dharam Trust (2017), and which has since been followed in DDA vs Godfrey Phillips and Delhi Administration vs Pawan Kumar: a subsequent purchaser has no locus to challenge the acquisition proceedings or seek a declaration of lapse under the 2013 Act. The respondent's plea that Shiv Kumar needed reconsideration was not accepted. Because the writ petitioner was admittedly a subsequent purchaser, the High Court had seriously erred in entertaining his petition at all. Both appeals were allowed, the High Court's judgment was set aside and the original writ petition was dismissed, with no order as to costs.
Lesson Learnt
Buying land after it has already been acquired by the government does not give the buyer a right to challenge the acquisition or claim it has lapsed; only the owner at the time of acquisition can raise such objections. Purchasers should check acquisition status before buying, since a subsequent purchase confers no standing to undo the acquisition.