SUBJECT: “MP LAND LAWS”
A project report on:
“GOVT. (NCT OF DELHI) V MANAV DHARAM TRUST AND
ANR. (1974)”
SUBMITTED TO: SUBMITTED BY:
MR. ANIMESH JHA SOMYA AGRAWAL
(ASSISTANT PROFESSOR OF LAW) SEMESTER
VIII
BAL/102/18
1
ACKNOWLEGDEMENT
“The success and final outcome of this project required a lot of guidance and assistance from
many people and I am extremely privileged to have got this all along the completion of my
project. All that I have done is due to such supervision and assistance and I would not forget to
thank them.”
Firstly, I am extremely obliged to Dharmashastra National Law University to provide me such
an opportunity to do this project.
I respect and thank to Our Respected Vice-Chancellor Prof. (Dr.) V. Nagaraj, Dean Of
Academics Mr. Manwendra Kumar Tiwari and owe my deep gratitude to my project guide Mr.
Animesh Jha (Assistant Professor of Law) she guided me “all along, till the completion of my
project work by providing all the necessary information for developing a good system.”
At last, I would like to thank my family & friends.
Somya Agrawal
BAL/102/18
25th April, 2022
2
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. INTRODUCTION………………………………………..……..4
2. FACTS…………………………………………………………..5
3. ISSUES…………………………………………………………..5
4. LAW INVOLVED………………………………………………5
5. ARGUMENTS…………………………………………………..7
6. CONCLUSION…………………………………………………10
3
INTRODUCTION
The High Court has taken the view in favor of such people. Thus, aggrieved the NCT of Delhi
and Delhi Development Authority are in appeals before this Court.
At the outset, we may note that in these cases, the land acquisition proceedings have otherwise
lapsed by the operation of Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act since either compensation was not paid
or possession was not taken within five years prior to 01.01.2014, the date of coming into force
of the 2013 Act. Thus, the dispute is only on the locus standi.
Shri Amarendra Saran, learned Senior Counsel leading the arguments on behalf of the appellants
submits that in all these cases, the transfer is in violation of The Delhi Lands (Restrictions
on Transfer) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as “the Delhi Act, 1972”). The transfers in favour
of the writ petitioners are hence void, and accordingly, the beneficiary of an illegal/void
transaction is not entitled to file a case for any relief.
Reliance is placed on Sections 3,4,8, and 9 of the 1972 Act, which read as follows:
“3. Prohibition on transfer of lands acquired by Central Government – No person shall purport to
transfer by sale, mortgage, gift, lease or otherwise any land or part thereof situated in the Union
territory of Delhi which has been acquired by the Central Government under the Land
Acquisition Act, 1984 or under any other law providing for acquisition of land for a public
purpose.
24. Regulation on transfer of lands in relation to which acquisition proceedings have been
initiated.
No person shall, except with the previous permission in writing of the competent authority,
transfer or purport to transfer by sale, mortgage, gift, lease or otherwise any land or part thereof
situated in the Union territory of Delhi, which is proposed to be acquired in connection with the
Scheme and in relation to which a declaration to the effect that such land or part thereof is
4
needed for a public purpose having been made by the Central Government under section 6 of the
Land Acquisition Act, 1894, the Central Government has not withdrawn from the acquisition
under section 48 of that Act.
38. Restrictions on registration of transfers of land – Notwithstanding anything contained in any
other law for the time being in force, where any document required to be registered under the
provisions of clause (a) to clause (e) of sub-section (1) of section 17 of the Registration Act,
1908, purports to transfer by sale, mortgage, gift, lease or otherwise any land or part thereof
referred to in section 4, no registering officer appointed under that Act shall register any such
document unless the transferor produces before such registering officer a permission in writing
of the competent authority for such transfer.
FACTS
The High Court has taken the view in favor of such people. Thus, aggrieved the NCT of Delhi
and Delhi Development Authority are in appeals before the Supreme Court. So here the
appellants are the NCT of Delhi and Delhi Development Authority while the people are the
respondents.
ISSUES
Whether the subsequent purchasers/assignees/power of attorney holders, etc., have locus standi
to file a petition for a 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 or not?
LAW
24. Land acquisition process under Act No. 1 of 1894 shall be deemed to have lapsed in
certain cases.–
(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, in any case of land acquisition proceedings
initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894,—
5
(a) where no award under section 11 of the said Land Acquisition Act has been made, then, all
provisions of this Act relating to the determination of compensation shall apply; or
(b) where an award under said section 11 has been made, then such proceedings shall continue
under the provisions of the said Land Acquisition Act, as if the said Act has not been repealed.
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), in case of land acquisition
proceedings initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (1 of 1894), where an award under
the said section 11 has been made five years or more prior to the commencement of this Act but
the physical possession of the land has not been taken or the compensation has not been paid the
said proceedings shall be deemed to have lapsed and the appropriate Government, if it so
chooses, shall initiate the proceedings of such land acquisition afresh in accordance with the
provisions of this Act: Provided that where an award has been made and compensation in respect
of a majority of land holdings has not been deposited in the account of the beneficiaries, then, all
beneficiaries specified in the notification for acquisition under section 4 of the said Land
Acquisition Act, shall be entitled to compensation in accordance with the provisions of this Act.
Reliance is placed on Sections 3,4,8, and 9 of the 1972 Act, which read as follows:
Sec 3 of Delhi Act, 1972- Prohibition on transfer of lands acquired by Central Government
– No person shall purport to transfer by sale, mortgage, gift, lease or otherwise any land or part
thereof situated in the Union territory of Delhi which has been acquired by the Central
Government under the Land Acquisition Act, 1984 or under any other law providing for
acquisition of land for a public purpose.
Sec 4 of Delhi Act, 1972 - Regulation on transfer of lands in relation to which acquisition
proceedings have been initiated- No person shall, except with the previous permission in
writing of the competent authority, transfer or purport to transfer by sale, mortgage, gift, lease or
otherwise any land or part thereof situated in the Union territory of Delhi, which is proposed to
be acquired in connection with the Scheme and in relation to which a declaration to the effect
that such land or part thereof is needed for a public purpose having been made by the Central
6
Government under section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, the Central Government has not
withdrawn from the acquisition under section 48 of that Act.
Sec 8 of Delhi Act, 1972 - Restrictions on registration of transfers of land – Notwithstanding
anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, where any document required to
be registered under the provisions of clause (a) to clause (e) of sub-section (1) of section 17 of
the Registration Act, 1908, purports to transfer by sale, mortgage, gift, lease or otherwise any
land or part thereof referred to in section 4, no registering officer appointed under that Act shall
register any such document unless the transferor produces before such registering officer a
permission in writing of the competent authority for such transfer.
Sec 9 of Delhi Act, 1972 - Penalty – If any person contravenes the provisions of section
3 or section 4, he shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three
years or with fine or with both.
ARGUMENTS
U.P. JAL NIGAM, LUCKNOW THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN AND ANOTHER V.
KALRA PROPERTIES (P) LTD., LUCKNOW AND OTHERS is a case where this Court
considered the consequences of a transfer of the land after issuance of notification under Section
4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as “the 1894 Act”) in the State of
Uttar Pradesh. It was held that any encumbrances created by the owner after Section 4(1)
Notification is published, does not bind the Government and such a purchaser does not acquire
any title to the property.
V) V. CHANDRASEKARAN AND ANOTHER V. ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER AND
OTHERS
In view of the above, the law on the issue can be summarised to the effect that a person who
purchases land subsequent to the issuance of a Section 4 notification with respect to it, is not
competent to challenge the validity of the acquisition proceedings on any ground whatsoever, for
the reason that the sale deed executed in his favour does not confer upon him, any title and at the
most he can claim compensation on the basis of his vendor’s title.
7
ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY WILL NOT
GRANT THE LAND:
(i) That the land is needed or is likely to be needed for the effective implementation of the
Scheme;
(ii) That the land is needed or is likely to be needed for securing the objects of the Delhi
Development Authority referred to in section 6 of the Development Act;
(iii) That the land is needed or is likely to be needed for any development within the meaning of
clause (d) of section 2 of the Development Act or for such things as public building and other
public works and utilities, roads, housing, recreation, industry, business, markets, schools and
other educational institutions, hospitals and public open spaces and other categories of public
uses.” It was also contended that the 2013 Act has not exempted the acquisitions under The
Delhi Development Act, 1957, and for that matter the Delhi Act, 1972 under the Fourth Schedule
to Section 105.
Yet another contention was that in all these cases, the challenge was not to the acquisition
proceedings but for a declaration under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act to the effect that by virtue
of operation of the said provision, the acquisition proceedings have lapsed.
It is one thing to say that there is a challenge to the legality or propriety or validity of the
acquisition proceedings and yet another thing to say that by virtue of operation of a subsequent
legislation, the acquisition proceedings have lapsed.
In all the decisions cited by the learned Senior Counsel for the appellants, which we have
referred to above, this Court has protected the rights of the subsequent purchaser to claim
compensation, being a person interested in the compensation, despite holding that they have no
locus standi to challenge the acquisition proceedings.
The 2013 Act has made a sea change in the approach on the acquisition of land and
compensation thereof. The only lapse under the 1894 Act was under Section 11A where what
would lapse is the ... “entire proceedings for the acquisition of land” whereas under Section
24(2) of the 2013 Act, what gets lapsed is the land acquisition proceedings initiated under the
1894 Act which has culminated in passing of an award under Section 11 but where either
8
possession was not taken or compensation was not paid within five years prior to 01.01.2014. In
other words, the land acquisition proceedings contemplated under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act
would take in both, payment of compensation and taking of possession within the five year
period prior to 01.01.2014. If either of them is not satisfied, the entire land acquisition
proceedings would lapse under the deeming provision. The impact of deemed lapse
under Section 24(2) is that pervasive. To quote R.F. Nariman, J. in Delhi Development Authority
v. Sukbhir Singh and others[6]. To quote:
“... As is well settled, a deeming fiction is enacted so that a putative state of affairs must be
imagined, the mind not being allowed to boggle at the logical consequence of such putative state
of affairs ... In fact, Section 24(2) uses the expression “deemed to have lapsed” because the
Legislature was cognisant of the fact that, in cases where compensation has not been paid, and
physical possession handed over to the State/vesting has taken place, after which land acquisition
proceedings could be said to have been ended. ...” (Paragraph-27).
Thus, on account of the lapse, the encumbrance created in favour of the State comes to an end,
and resultantly, the impediment to encumber the land also comes to an end. Even, according to
the appellants, the transfers were illegal and void for the reason that there was an impediment for
the transfer. Once the acquisition proceedings lapse, all impediments cease to exist.
As we have already noted above, the whole face of land acquisition has changed by the 2013
Act. Section 105 of the 2013 Act has provided that the provisions of the Act shall not apply to
the enactments specified in the Fourth Schedule. So far, only 13 Acts have been notified under
the Fourth Schedule. Neither The Delhi Development Act, 1957 nor The Delhi Lands
(Restrictions on Transfers) Act, 1972 is included in the Fourth Schedule.
The main purpose of the 2013 Act is clearly stated in the preamble which reads as follows :-
“An Act to ensure, in consultation with institutions of local self- government and Gram Sabhas
established under the Constitution, a humane, participative, informed and transparent process for
land acquisition for industrialisation, development of essential infrastructural facilities and
urbanisation with the least disturbance to the owners of the land and other affected families and
provide just and fair compensation to the affected families whose land has been acquired or
proposed to be acquired or are affected by such acquisition and make adequate provisions for
9
such affected persons for their rehabilitation and resettlement and for ensuring that the
cumulative outcome of compulsory acquisition should be that affected persons become partners
in development leading to an improvement in their post acquisition social and economic status
and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto.” There is a clear indication that the Act
proposes to protect the interest of those persons, among others who are affected by the
acquisition. The subsequent purchasers/successors, etc., in the cases before us, are all people
affected by the acquisition, and therefore, also they are entitled to seek a declaration on lapse
under the 2013 Act.
The High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru in Suryaprakash and others v. State of Karnataka and
others[7] 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. At
paragraph-16, it has been held:
“16. … the principle that transferee of land after the publication of preliminary notification
cannot maintain a writ petition challenging the acquisition, cannot be made applicable to a case
where the acquisition itself has been abandoned and has stood lapsed due to efflux of time on
account of the omission and inaction on the part of the acquiring authority, particularly because,
it is because of the lapse of time and the abandonment of the acquisition, right accrues to the
original owner to deal with his property including by way of the sale and the purchaser will
acquire right to protect his interest. Hence, the judgment in the case of Rajasthan State Industrial
Development and Investment Corporation v. Subhash Sindhi Cooperative Housing Society,
Jaipur and others (2013) 5 SCC 427, will have no application to the facts of the present case.”
We are of the view that this decision, in principle, applies to the facts of these appeals as well.
CONCLUSION
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
10
acquisition. For such a declaration, it cannot be said that the respondents/writ petitioners do not
have any locus standi.
11
