Delhi Development Authority vs Narendra Kumar Jain & Ors.
Background
Land belonging to certain original owners had been acquired by the government, with possession taken over by the Land Acquisition Collector (LAC) in 2004. The respondents, who were not the original recorded owners but had subsequently purchased the land, filed a writ petition claiming that because compensation had never been paid or tendered, the acquisition should be treated as having "lapsed" under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. The Delhi High Court agreed and declared the acquisition lapsed, relying on an earlier Supreme Court ruling (Manav Dharma Trust) that had allowed subsequent purchasers to raise such a challenge. The Delhi Development Authority appealed to the Supreme Court.
Decision Breakdown
The Supreme Court held that the High Court's reliance on Manav Dharma Trust was misplaced because that decision had since been held not to be good law by two later rulings of the Supreme Court: Shiv Kumar v. Union of India (2019) and Delhi Development Authority v. Godfrey Philips (I) Ltd., both of which specifically held that a subsequent purchaser (someone who buys land after it has already been notified for acquisition) has no legal standing to challenge the acquisition or claim a deemed lapse of it. Since the respondents here were admittedly subsequent purchasers and not the original owners, the High Court's judgment allowing their challenge was legally unsustainable. The Supreme Court therefore quashed the High Court's order and allowed the Authority's appeal.
Lesson Learnt
A person who buys land after it has already been earmarked for government acquisition generally cannot later challenge that acquisition or claim it has lapsed for non-payment of compensation: that right belongs to the original land-owner whose land was taken, not to someone who purchased it afterward knowing (or presumed to know) of the pending acquisition.