Govt. of NCT of Delhi v. Manav Dharam Trust
Background
In a large batch of connected appeals, the Delhi High Court had allowed writ petitions filed by persons who had purchased land in Delhi after it was originally notified for acquisition, declaring that the acquisition proceedings over that land had lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Land Acquisition Act (because compensation was not paid or possession not taken within the statutory period). The Government of NCT of Delhi and the Delhi Development Authority appealed, arguing that these subsequent purchasers, whose purchases violated the Delhi Lands (Restrictions on Transfer) Act, 1972, had no legal standing ("locus standi") to seek such a declaration at all.
Decision Breakdown
The Supreme Court held that while settled case law bars a subsequent purchaser from challenging the validity of the original acquisition itself, that line of precedent does not apply where the purchaser is only seeking a declaration that the acquisition has lapsed by operation of a later statute. Since the 2013 Act defines "person interested" and "affected family" broadly enough to include such purchasers/successors, and since a lapse under Section 24(2) extinguishes the very encumbrance that made the earlier transfers "void," the Court held these purchasers did have standing to seek the lapse declaration. The appeals were accordingly dismissed, though the authorities were given six months to start fresh acquisition proceedings if they wished.
Lesson Learnt
Buying land that is under an acquisition notification does not give the buyer any right to challenge the acquisition itself, but if the acquiring authority later lets the acquisition lapse by its own inaction (failing to pay compensation or take possession in time), the buyer can still go to court to have that lapse formally declared.