9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (5) TMI 1761 - SC - Indian LawsSeeking declaration of lapse of acquisition proceedings Under Section 24(2) of The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 - whether subsequent purchasers/assignees/power of attorney holders, etc., have locus standi to file a petition for such declaration? HELD THAT - The High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru in SURYAPRAKASH AND ORS. VERSUS STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ORS. 2016 (12) TMI 1853 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT has considered a situation of lapse and locus standi of the subsequent purchaser to file a writ petition for a declaration on lapse, though not Under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act. Thus, the subsequent purchaser, the assignee, the successor in interest, the power of attorney, etc., are all persons who are interested in compensation/land owners/affected persons in terms of the 2013 Act and such persons are entitled to file a case for a declaration that the land acquisition proceedings have lapsed by virtue of operation of Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act. It is a declaration qua the land wherein indisputably they have an interest and they are affected by such acquisition. For such a declaration, it cannot be said that the Respondents/writ Petitioners do not have any locus standi. There are no merit in these appeals and they are accordingly dismissed.
Issues Involved:
1. Locus standi of subsequent purchasers/assignees/power of attorney holders to file a petition for a declaration of lapse of acquisition proceedings under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act. 2. Validity of transfers under the Delhi Lands (Restrictions on Transfer) Act, 1972. 3. Interpretation of "person interested" under the 1894 Act and the 2013 Act. 4. Impact of Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act on land acquisition proceedings initiated under the 1894 Act. Detailed Analysis: 1. Locus Standi of Subsequent Purchasers/Assignees/Power of Attorney Holders: The primary issue is whether subsequent purchasers or assignees have the locus standi to file a petition under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act. The High Court had ruled in favor of such individuals, prompting the appeal by the NCT of Delhi and Delhi Development Authority. The Supreme Court noted that the land acquisition proceedings had lapsed by the operation of Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act since compensation was not paid or possession was not taken within five years prior to 01.01.2014. Therefore, the dispute focused solely on the locus standi. 2. Validity of Transfers Under the Delhi Lands (Restrictions on Transfer) Act, 1972: The appellants argued that the transfers were in violation of the Delhi Act, 1972, making them void. Sections 3, 4, 8, and 9 of the 1972 Act were cited to support this contention, emphasizing that any transfer without the competent authority's permission is prohibited and punishable. The Supreme Court, however, noted that the challenge was not to the acquisition proceedings but for a declaration of lapse under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act. 3. Interpretation of "Person Interested" Under the 1894 Act and the 2013 Act: The term "person interested" was examined under both the 1894 Act and the 2013 Act. Under the 1894 Act, it includes all persons claiming an interest in compensation due to land acquisition. The 2013 Act broadens this definition to include those whose primary source of livelihood is likely to be adversely affected. The Court concluded that subsequent purchasers and other stakeholders are indeed "persons interested" under the 2013 Act. 4. Impact of Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act on Land Acquisition Proceedings: Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act stipulates that land acquisition proceedings initiated under the 1894 Act would lapse if compensation was not paid or possession was not taken within five years before 01.01.2014. The Court emphasized that this provision creates a deeming fiction, leading to the lapse of acquisition proceedings and the end of any impediments to land transfer. The 2013 Act's broader approach to land acquisition and compensation was highlighted, reinforcing the rights of affected individuals, including subsequent purchasers. Conclusion: The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, affirming that subsequent purchasers, assignees, and power of attorney holders have the locus standi to file for a declaration of lapse under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act. The Court noted that the 2013 Act significantly changes the landscape of land acquisition, emphasizing the protection of affected persons' interests. The appellants were granted six months to initiate fresh acquisition proceedings under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act.
|
