The Supreme Court Ruled On Section 24(2) Of The RFCTLARR Act, Which States That "The Benefit of Lapse is Not Available If The Delay In Taking Possession Was Due To Pending Litigation."

The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation, and Resettlement Act of 2013's Section 24(2) does not grant the original owner of the land the benefit of lapse, according to a ruling by the Supreme Court bench made up of Justices MR Shah and CT Ravi Kumar.

Facts  

The Appellants in this civil appeal, the Government of the National Capital Territory of Delhi, had approached the Supreme Court feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and the writ petition submitted by the private respondents in this civil appeal was granted by order dated 17.07.2017 issued by the High Court of Delhi. who are also the original writ petitioners, and decided that y Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation, and Resettlement Act of 2013, the acquisition in question is presumed to have expired.

Appellant's Arguments 

The Appellants' primary arguments were twofold:

First, they contended that the original writ petitioners, as subsequent purchasers of the land in question, have no right or title to the land at the time of Award and thus cannot contest the acquisition procedures. As a result, the Appellants contended that the original petitioners lacked standing to file the writ petition and seek remedy over the acquisition.

Second, the Appellants contended that possession of the land in question could not be taken over because of ongoing litigation started by the original land owners opposing the acquisition, which resulted in this Court upholding the acquisition processes.

Analysis 

The High Court granted the writ petition and declared that the acquisition concerning the subject land is deemed to have lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013, the Court stated, "Without relying on the fact that the possession has not been taken over and the compensation is not paid, without even considering the locus of the original writ petitioners to dispute the acquisition/lapsing of the acquisition."

Concerning the original writ petitioners' locus as subsequent purchasers, the court held, "Now so far as the said issue is concerned, above said the issue is now not res Integra given the decision of the three-judge bench of this Court in the case of Shiv Kumar & Anr. Vs. Union of India & Ors. (2019) 10 SCC 229, wherein the Supreme Court expressly stated and held that the future purchaser has no right to contest the acquisition

On Merits  

Even on the merits, the Court ruled that "the landowner cannot be permitted to take the benefit/advantage of the same and then argue that as the possession is not taken over (may be due to the pending litigation), they are still entitled to the benefit of lapse" if the acquiring body/beneficiary was unable to take possession due to ongoing litigation in a proceeding initiated by the landowner.

Judgment 

Finally, the court determined, "The disputed decision and order issued by the High Court are illegal for the reasons described above, and as a result, they are quashed and overturned. The initial writ petition filed by the original writ petitioners, requesting a halt to the acquisition procedures, is thus rejected."