Supreme Court Rules Encroachers Not Entitled to Relief under Section 24(2) of Land Acquisition Act

In a recent judgment, the Supreme Court of India delivered a significant ruling on the issue of land acquisition and subsequent possession. The court held that encroachers cannot seek relief under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. The judgment, authored by Justice M.R. Shah, clarifies the legal position regarding the rights of subsequent purchasers and the consequences of encroachment.

The case, titled "State of Haryana & Ors. vs. Sushila & Ors.," involved a dispute over land acquisition in Haryana. The High Court of Punjab and Haryana had declared that the acquisition had lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Act as the compensation had not been paid to the original writ petitioners, who also claimed subsequent possession of the land.

The Supreme Court, in its judgment, highlighted the fact that the possession of the land in question had been taken over and handed over to the designated beneficiary by the acquiring body. Therefore, any subsequent possession claimed by the original writ petitioners was deemed to be encroachment. The court emphasized that encroachers cannot be permitted to take advantage of the provisions of Section 24(2) and seek relief under the Act.

Justice M.R. Shah stated, "It would be giving a premium to the illegality and the encroachers which cannot be the intention of the legislature." The court further observed that subsequent purchasers lack locus standi to challenge the acquisition or the lapse of acquisition. The judgment referred to previous decisions, including Delhi Administration Through Secretary, Land and Building vs. Pawan Kumar & Ors., and Delhi Development Authority vs. Godfrey Phillips (I) Ltd. & Ors., which also established the lack of standing for subsequent purchasers in such cases.

Supreme Court set aside the impugned judgment of the High Court and dismissed the original writ petition filed by the subsequent purchasers. The court held that the private respondents had no entitlement to relief under Section 24(2) and that the acquisition proceedings were valid.

Date of Decision: January 13, 2023

The State of Haryana & Ors.  vs Sushila & Ors.