Lapse of Acquisition Under Section 24(2) Cannot Be Invoked by Subsequent Purchasers or for Concluded Proceedings

The petitioner purchased the land in question via a registered sale deed dated 17.08.2009

land acquisition proceedings had already commenced with a Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, published on 11.11.2008

An award was subsequently declared on 29.06.2010

The petitioner refused to accept compensation, seeking instead the release of the land from acquisition

Discrepancies regarding the physical possession of the land arose; a DILR measurement on 27.05.2014 indicated the petitioner was possessing Survey No. 628/2 (Forest Department land acquired in 2005) rather than the acquired Survey No. 628 paiki 4 paiki 2

The petitioner filed this application in 2018 seeking a declaration that the acquisition had lapsed

1. Whether the land acquisition proceedings lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013

2. Whether a subsequent purchaser of land, who acquired title after the Section 4 Notification under the 1894 Act, has the standing to challenge the acquisition proceedings

Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, concerning the lapsing of acquisitions initiated under the 1894 Act

Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal and Others [(2020) 8 SCC 129], which settled the interpretation of Section 24(2) regarding the conditions of payment of compensation and taking of physical possession

the principle that a "subsequent purchaser" (one who purchases land after the issuance of a Section 4 Notification) cannot maintain a challenge against the validity of acquisition proceedings

The Court reasoned that the acquisition proceedings were legally concluded with the passing of the award on 29.06.2010, prior to the commencement of the 2013 Act

Applying the Indore Development Authority (supra) standard, the Court found no merit in the plea for lapsing

Crucially, the Court noted that the petitioner is a "subsequent purchaser," having bought the property on 17.08.2009, well after the Section 4 Notification was published on 11.11.2008; thus, the petitioner lacks the legal entitlement to challenge the acquisition

The Court further observed that factual disputes regarding the non-utilization of the land or discrepancies in possession identified by the DILR do not provide a legal basis for relief under the 2013 Act

The Court clarified that the petitioner's claim regarding non-utilization of land was irrelevant

the Court granted liberty to the petitioner to move an application before the competent authority for the disbursement of the compensation determined in the 2010 award, subject to strictly conducted inquiry and verification of entitlement