Lapse of Land Acquisition: Supreme Court Rules on Delhi Government vs. Manav Dharam Trust

The case of Govt. of NCT of Delhi vs. Manav Dharam Trust & Anr. addressed a crucial issue concerning the applicability of Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation, and Resettlement Act, 2013. The Supreme Court ruled on whether subsequent purchasers, assignees, or power of attorney holders have the locus standi to challenge land acquisition proceedings.

Background of the Case

The appeals were filed by the Government of NCT of Delhi and the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) against multiple respondents, including Manav Dharam Trust. The core issue in all these cases revolved around whether land acquisition proceedings had lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act and whether subsequent purchasers had the right to challenge such proceedings.

The High Court had ruled in favor of the landowners and subsequent purchasers, leading to these appeals before the Supreme Court.

Legal Provisions Involved

1. Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act

This provision states that land acquisition proceedings initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 would lapse if:

• Compensation was not paid, or
• Possession was not taken within five years prior to 01.01.2014 (the effective date of the new law).

2. Delhi Lands (Restrictions on Transfer) Act, 1972

This Act prohibits the transfer of land acquired by the Central Government and regulates transfers in cases where acquisition proceedings have been initiated.

Arguments Presented

Petitioner’s (Govt. of NCT of Delhi & DDA) Arguments

• The subsequent purchasers had no legal right to file petitions under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act.
• Transfers of land under acquisition were illegal and void under the Delhi Lands (Restrictions on Transfer) Act, 1972.
• Relying on previous Supreme Court rulings, they contended that once land was acquired, subsequent purchasers could not challenge acquisition proceedings.

Respondent’s (Landowners & Subsequent Purchasers) Arguments

• Their petitions were not against the original acquisition but for a declaration that the acquisition had lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act.
• The 2013 Act introduced new provisions, granting them the right to claim lapse of acquisition.
• The subsequent purchasers, as “persons interested” under the Act, had the right to seek legal remedies.

Key Observations of the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court held that:

• Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act allows land acquisition to lapse if compensation was unpaid or possession was not taken.
• Subsequent purchasers, assignees, and successors in interest were indeed “persons interested” under the law and could seek a declaration of lapse.
• Earlier case laws, which barred subsequent purchasers from challenging land acquisition, applied only when the challenge was against the validity of acquisition, not when seeking lapse under the new law.
• Once the acquisition lapsed, the government’s claim over the land was extinguished.

Final Judgment

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals and upheld the High Court’s ruling:

• Subsequent purchasers had the right to seek lapse under Section 24(2).
• The government’s acquisition claims were invalid if compensation was unpaid or possession was not taken.
• The Delhi government and DDA were given six months to initiate fresh acquisition proceedings, if necessary.

Significance of the Judgment

This ruling is significant for landowners, real estate developers, and government authorities, as it:

• Clarifies that subsequent purchasers can challenge land acquisition under the 2013 Act.
• Reaffirms that failure to take possession or pay compensation leads to lapse of acquisition.
• Strengthens the rights of affected landowners in cases of prolonged acquisitions.
• Provides a six-month window for the government to reinitiate acquisition, preventing abuse of lapse provisions.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision in Govt. of NCT of Delhi vs. Manav Dharam Trust has far-reaching implications on land acquisition laws. It establishes that subsequent purchasers have the right to claim lapse of acquisition proceedings under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act, reinforcing the rights of landowners while ensuring that governments adhere to due process in land acquisitions.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: Govt. of NCT of Delh vs Manav Dharam Trust & Supreme Court of India Judgment Dated 04-05-2017.pdf

Direct Downlaod Judgment: Direct downlaod this Judgment

See all petitions in Property Disputes
See all petitions in Contract Disputes
See all petitions in Judgment by Kurian Joseph
See all petitions in Judgment by R. Banumathi
See all petitions in dismissed
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments May 2017
See all petitions in 2017 judgments

See all posts in Civil Cases Category
See all allowed petitions in Civil Cases Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Civil Cases Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Civil Cases Category