GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI versus RAVINDER KUMAR JAIN & ORS.

Citation: [2023] 7 S.C.R. 311 · Decided: 18-05-2023 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ABHAY S. OKA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
311
GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI
v.
RAVINDER KUMAR JAIN & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 3621 of 2023)
MAY 18, 2023
[ABHAY S. OKA AND RAJESH BINDAL, JJ.]
Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land
Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 – s.24(2) –
Locus of a subsequent purchaser to invoke s.24(2) to claim lapse
of acquisition – Writ petition filed by the respondent no.1 invoking
s.24(2) was allowed, acquisition in question was held to have lapsed
– Correctness of – Held: A subsequent buyer of the property after
issuance of the notification u/s.4 of the 1894 Act has no locus to
invoke s.24(2) of the 2013 Act – In the present case, notification u/
s.4 of 1894 Act was issued on 25.11.1980 and the sale deed in
favour of the respondent no.1 was registered on 18.6.2003 – Rather
it is evident from the affidavit filed by the Land Acquisition Collector
in the High Court that the respondent no.1 purchased the land from
one ‘BB’ who had purchased the same vide sale deed dated
09.06.1981, which itself was after the issuance of notification u/s.4
of the 1894 Act on 25.11.1980 – Hence, the respondent did not
have right to invoke jurisdiction of the High Court to claim that the
acquisition in question had lapsed in view of s.24(2) of the 2013
Act – Impugned order passed by High Court set aside – Writ petition
filed by the respondent No.1 dismissed – Land Acquisition Act, 1894
– s.4 – Delhi Lands (Restrictions on Transfer) Act, 1972 – s.8 –
Land Acquisition.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 The process of acquisition of land in question
started with the issuance of notification of Section 4 of the 1894
Act on 25.11.1980. Subsequently, notification under Section 6 was
issued on 27.05.1985. The owner of the land at that stage
challenged the acquisition by filing W.P.(C) No.1229 of 1986.
Award under Section 11 of the 1894 Act was announced by the
Land Acquisition Collector on 05.06.1987. The writ petition was
dismissed for non-prosecution on 09.12.2004. The High Court
[2023] 7 S.C.R. 311
311
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
312
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 7 S.C.R.
also recorded that the issue raised in the petition is otherwise
also covered by various judgments. The respondent no.1 had
purchased the land in question vide registered sale deed dated
18.06.2003. The fact that he had knowledge about the acquisition
of land, is evident from two facts. Firstly, that it was sought to be
pointed out by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
respondent no. 1 that he had obtained permission from the
competent authority in terms of the provisions of the 1972 Act
for transfer of the land, which had already been acquired. Though,
in para 13 of the sale deed a vague averment has been made in
that regard, however, no such certificate was produced. Even
production thereof may not be of any help to the respondent no.
1. Secondly, the writ petition was filed by the respondent no. 1
bearing W.P.(C) No.3701 of 2008 challenging the acquisition
proceedings. The same was dismissed as withdrawn on 22.10.2008
with liberty to the petitioner therein to avail of the remedy of
review/ recall of the order dated 09.12.2004 vide which the writ
petition filed by the predecessor in interest of the respondent
no.1, challenging the acquisition, was dismissed for non-
prosecution. It is the admitted position that an application filed
by the respondent No.1 for reviewing/ recalling was dismissed.
[Paras 5, 6][314-G-H; 315-A-E]
1.2 A subsequent buyer of the property after issuance of
the notification under Section 4 the 1894 Act has no locus to
invoke Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act. In the case in hand it is the
admitted position on record that notification under Section 4 of
1894 Act was issued on 25.11.1980 and the sale deed in favour of
the respondent no. 1 was registered on 18.6.2003. Rather it is
evident from the affidavit filed by the Land Acquisition Collector
in the High Court that the respondent no.1 purchased the land
from ‘BB’ vide registered sale deed dated 18.06.2003, who had
purchased the same from M/s. Ansal Housing and Estates (P)
Ltd. vide sale deed dated 09.06.1981, which itself was after the
issuance of notification under Section 4 of the 1894 Act on
25.11.1980. Hence, the respondent will not have right to invoke
jurisdiction of the High Court to claim that the acquisition in
question had lapsed in view of Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act. The
impugned order passed by the High Court is set aside and the
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
313
writ
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.