Government of NCT of Delhi and Anr. vs. Mohd. Zubair and Anr.
Background
The Delhi High Court had declared land acquisition proceedings lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act, at the instance of a writ petitioner who was a subsequent purchaser of the land (i.e., someone who bought the land after acquisition proceedings had already begun), and solely on the ground that compensation had not been tendered. The Government's counter-affidavit had specifically stated that possession of the land was taken over on 16.07.2007, a point the High Court did not address. The Government appealed.
Decision Breakdown
The Supreme Court held, first, relying on its recent decision in Delhi Development Authority v. Godfrey Philips (I) Ltd., that a subsequent purchaser of already-acquired land has no legal standing ("locus") to challenge the acquisition or claim that it has lapsed, so the writ petition itself should not have been entertained. Second, and independently, the Court applied the Constitution Bench ruling in Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal (2020) 8 SCC 129, which requires BOTH non-possession and non-payment of compensation for a lapse to occur; since possession had already been taken in 2007, the compensation issue alone could not support a finding of lapse. On both grounds, the High Court's judgment was quashed and the Government's appeal allowed.
Lesson Learnt
Someone who buys land after it has already been marked for government acquisition generally cannot later go to court claiming the acquisition has "lapsed": that right belongs to the original landowner, and in any event, proof that possession was already taken defeats a lapse claim regardless of any compensation dispute.