The Supreme Court has ruled that subsequent purchasers of land acquired by the government from farmers and other owners after payment of compensation cannot challenge the acquisition proceedings.

Those who have purchased land acquired under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, can also not claim any compensation, the court said.

A bench of Justices A.S. Oka and Rajesh Bindal passed the judgment while allowing an appeal filed by the Delhi government challenging a Delhi High Court judgment of 2014 that had ruled in favour of Ravinder Kumar Jain and others who had purchased land from the original owners through sale deeds after the government had initiated acquisition proceedings.

The high court had taken the view that the acquisition proceedings challenged by the subsequent purchasers invoking Section 24(2) of the 2013 act was valid as the authorities had neither taken possession of the land nor paid compensation.

Jain and certain others had purchased the land from the original owners through a registered sale deed dated June 18, 2003, even though the government had in 1980 initiated the process of acquisition by issuing a notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act of 1894. The government acquisition had got delayed because of legal tangles.

The counsel for Jain argued that he had already constructed a house on the land and was living there for more than a decade. Jain had also been paying house tax regularly, his lawyers said.

However, the argument failed to convince the apex court.

Writing the judgment, Justice Bindal referred to the three-judge bench judgment in the Shiv Kumar and others vs Union of India and others (2019) case, wherein it was observed: “The 2013 Act presupposes that a person is required to be rehabilitated andresettled.”

The court said that subsequent buyers of land that had been earmarked for acquisition under Section 4 of the 1894 act, which the 2013 act replaced, cannot claim rehabilitation, resettlement and compensation.

“We have come across instances in which after notifications under Section 4 were issued and, the property was purchased at throwaway prices by the builders and unscrupulous persons, such purchases are void and confer no right even to claim higher compensation under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act as it is to be given to the owner as mentioned in the notification,” the Supreme Court said.

The court also referred to the judgment of a five-judge constitution bench in the Indore Development Authority vs Manoharlal and Others case (2020) that had reiterated the 2019 verdict.

Referring to Jain’s case, the court said on Wednesday: “Rather it is evident from the affidavit filed by the Land Acquisition Collector in the High Court that the respondent no. 1 purchased the land from Behl Brothers vide registered sale deed dated 18.06.2003, who had purchased the same from M/s. Ansal Housing and Estates (P) Ltd. vide saledeed dated 09.06.1981, which itself was after the issuance of notification under Section 4 of the 1894 Act on 25.11.1980. Hence, the respondent will not have right to invoke jurisdiction of the High Court to claim that the acquisitionin question had lapsed in view of Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act.”