Government of NCT of Delhi and Anr. vs. Karampal and Anr.
Background
A writ petitioner who was a subsequent purchaser of acquired land obtained a Delhi High Court order declaring that the land acquisition proceedings had lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act. The Government's counter-affidavit had stated that possession of the land was taken on 17.09.2008, with the Government's name even mutated (recorded) in the revenue records, but the High Court relied solely on the (by-then overruled) Pune Municipal Corporation precedent and the absence of compensation payment to find a lapse.
Decision Breakdown
The Supreme Court held, first, that as established in Delhi Development Authority v. Godfrey Philips (I) Ltd., a subsequent purchaser of already-acquired land has no standing to claim that the acquisition has lapsed, so the High Court erred in even entertaining the writ petition. Second, on the merits, the Court noted that Pune Municipal Corporation had been specifically overruled by the Constitution Bench in Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal (2020) 8 SCC 129, which requires that BOTH possession remain untaken AND compensation remain unpaid for a lapse to occur. Since possession had already been taken in 2008, the lapse claim could not succeed regardless of the compensation issue. The High Court's judgment was quashed and the Government's appeal allowed.
Lesson Learnt
A person who purchases land after acquisition proceedings have begun cannot later claim the acquisition has lapsed, only the original owner can raise that claim, and in any case, once the government has taken possession and recorded it in official revenue records, a non-payment-of-compensation argument alone cannot revive the land for the landowner.