A purchaser during acquisition proceedings acquires defective title and is limited to Section 51 remedies.

The petitioner purchased 5.50 cents in Survey No.139/1, Keela Natham Village, on 30 September 2002, after acquisition proceedings had commenced under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894: a Section 4(1) notification was issued in 1992, a Section 6 declaration in 1993, and an award was passed in 1995, with compensation deposited before the Sub Court, Tirunelveli.

The Housing Board stated that it took deemed or symbolic possession on 13 June 2003 and later plotted and allotted the land.

The petitioner claimed continuous physical possession, relied on a 2010 layout approval and a 2012 order concerning other lands, and sought to quash the Board’s 7 August 2026 order, declare the acquisition lapsed under Section 24 of the 2013 Act, or alternatively obtain transfer or reconveyance under Section 48B of the 1894 Act.

1. Whether the petitioner was entitled to a declaration that the acquisition had lapsed under Section 24 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.

2. Whether the petitioner was entitled to transfer or reconveyance of the land under Section 48B of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, relying on the 2012 order concerning other lands.

3. Whether, as a purchaser under a defective title, the petitioner could claim relief under Section 51 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882.

The Court considered the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, including its acquisition provisions and Section 48B, and Section 24 of the 2013 land-acquisition legislation, which the petitioner invoked for lapse; it also noted Section 114 of the 2013 Act.

The Court’s stated basis for the relief available to a bona fide transferee under a defective title was Section 51 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882: upon eviction by a person with better title, such a transferee may seek payment or security for the value of improvements, or require the person causing the eviction to sell their interest at the then market value, irrespective of the value of those improvements.

The Court distinguished *K.T.C. Nagar (North) Residents and Land Owners Association v. Secretary to Government*, W.P. No.9524 of 2011, noting that it had not considered Section 51 and that the possession circumstances differed.

The petitioner’s purchase occurred after the acquisition proceedings had begun and after the 1995 award; the Court therefore held that the petitioner’s title was defective.

It also relied on the Housing Board’s assertion that possession had been taken in 2003 and that the land was subsequently plotted and allotted, distinguishing the earlier case in which the relevant portion had not been taken over.

The Court found that the earlier decision did not establish the petitioner’s entitlement to exclusion or reconveyance in these circumstances.

It did not grant relief under Sections 24 or 48B; instead, it identified Section 51 as the potential basis for the petitioner, if established as a bona fide purchaser, to seek compensation for improvements or purchase at prevailing market value.

It disposed of the petition with the observation that the petitioner could claim compensation for improvements under Section 51 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, or request the Housing Board to sell the property at its prevailing market value, irrespective of those improvements.

No costs were ordered, and the connected miscellaneous petition was closed.