In Brief
Delhi Development Authority acquired land in Village Mundaka in 2005. Years later, a subsequent purchaser who bought the land in 2010, after the acquisition proceedings began, filed a writ petition claiming the acquisition had lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act because compensation had not been paid. The High Court allowed the petition. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that a subsequent purchaser has no standing to challenge acquisition or its lapsing. Further, since the Authority had already taken possession in 2007, no lapse could occur under Section 24(2), which requires both non-payment of compensation AND failure to take possession for five years before the Act commenced.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.