Subsequent purchasers can seek declaration of lapse under Section 24(2) of 2013 Act

The Supreme Court held that subsequent purchasers, assignees, and power of attorney holders have the standing to file for a declaration of lapse under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act. The Court emphasized the importance of the 2013 Act in protecting the interests of affected individuals in land acquisition proceedings. The appeals were dismissed, granting the appellants six months to initiate new acquisition proceedings under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act.

---

---

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.

---