Gujarat High Court
C/Sca/14020/2012 Order vs State Of Gujarat & 4 on 27 October, 2015
Author: Akil Kureshi
Bench: Akil Kureshi, Mohinder Pal
C/SCA/14020/2012 ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 14020 of 2012
=========================================================-=======
SHANTIBEN VAJSIBHAI ARJANBHAI....Petitioner(s)
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & 4....Respondent(s)
================================================================
Appearance:
MR KIRTIDEV R DAVE, ADVOCATE for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR VANDAN BAXI, AGP, for the Respondent(s) No. 1 - 3
MR MJ MEHTA, ADVOCATE for the Respondent(s) No. 5
SERVED BY RPAD - (R) for the Respondent(s) No. 4
================================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOHINDER PAL
Date : 27/10/2015
ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI)
1. Petitioner had filed this petition, at the outset, with the prayer for a declaration that the acquisition of land bearing Survey No.23/1 of village Shedha Bhadthar is bad in law. Petition was amended with an additional prayer for a declaration that such acquisition proceedings had lapsed in view of the Right to Fair Compensation And Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act of 2013").
2. Case of the petitioner is that, for the purpose of irrigation Page 1 of 5 HC-NIC Page 1 of 5 Created On Fri Oct 30 01:13:40 IST 2015 C/SCA/14020/2012 ORDER scheme the State Government was required to acquire private lands for which notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, "the Act") was issued on 29.9.2005, notification under section 6 on 20.01.2006 and award was passed on 06.07.2007. However, possession of the land was not taken over and the erstwhile owner of the land sold the land to the petitioner under a registered sale deed dated 17.03.2009. The contention of the petitioner is that, since neither possession of the land has been taken over nor compensation has been paid, in view of section 24 (2) of the Act of 2013, the acquisition should be deemed to have lapsed.
3. Case of the Government, however, is that the acquisition was carried out by following the necessary procedure. The land owner being not satisfied with the compensation awarded by Special Land Acquisition Officer has already sought a reference and such reference, being Reference Case No.333 of 2007, is pending before the Reference Court.
4. Learned AGP Mr.Baxi raised two contentions to oppose the petition, namely, that the petitioner being a subsequent purchaser long after the award was passed under section 11 of the Act has no locus standi to file this petition. He further contended that, except for amending the prayer clause, the petitioner has not made out any grounds for application of section 24 (2) of the Act of 2013. In absence of any pleadings, such prayer cannot be allowed. Page 2 of 5 HC-NIC Page 2 of 5 Created On Fri Oct 30 01:13:40 IST 2015 C/SCA/14020/2012 ORDER
5. We are inclined to dispose of this petition only on the short ground that being a subsequent purchaser, the petitioner has no locus standi to challenge the acquisition for which the award was passed long before the petitioner claimed to have acquired the land under a registered sale deed. This aspect has been brought about in detail in the decision of the Supreme Court in V. Chandrashekaran v. Administrative Officer reported in (2012) 12 SCC 133 in which the following observations are made:
"15. The issue of maintainability of the writ petitions by the person who purchases the land subsequent to a notification being issued under Section 4 of the Act has been considered by this Court time and again. In Pandit Leela Ram v. Union of India, AIR 1975 SC 2112, this Court held that, any one who deals with the land subsequent to a Section 4 notification being issued, does so, at his own peril. In Sneh Prabha v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1996 SC 540, this Court held that a Section 4 notification gives a notice to the public at large that the land in respect to which it has been issued, is needed for a public purpose, and it further points out that there will be "an impediment to any one to encumber the land acquired thereunder." The alienation thereafter does not bind the State or the beneficiary under the acquisition. The purchaser is entitled only to receive compensation. While deciding the said case, reliance was placed on an earlier judgment of this Court in Union of india v. Shri Shiv Kumar Bhargava & Ors., JT (1995) 6 SC 274.
16. Similarly, in U.P. Jal Nigam v. M/s. Kalra Properties Pvt. Ltd., AIR 1996 SC 1170, this Court held that, purchase of land after publication of a Section 4 notification in relation to such land, is void against the State and at the most, the purchaser may be a Page 3 of 5 HC-NIC Page 3 of 5 Created On Fri Oct 30 01:13:40 IST 2015 C/SCA/14020/2012 ORDER person-interested in compensation, since he steps into the shoes of the erstwhile owner and may therefore, merely claim compensation. (See also: Star Wire (India) Ltd. v. State of Haryana & Ors., (1996) 11 SCC 698).
17. In Ajay Kishan Singhal v. Union of India, AIR 1996 SC 2677; Mahavir & Anr. v. Rural Institute, Amravati & Anr., (1995) 5 SCC 335; Gian Chand v. Gopala & Ors., (1995) 2 SCC 528; and Meera Sahni v. Lieutenant Governor of Delhi & Ors., (2008) 9 SCC 177, this Court categorically held that, a person who purchases land after the publication of a Section 4 notification with respect to it, is not entitled to challenge the proceedings for the reason, that his title is void and he can at best claim compensation on the basis of vendor's title. In view of this, the sale of land after issuance of a Section 4 notification is void and the purchaser cannot challenge the acquisition proceedings. (See also: Tika Ram v. State of U.P., (2009) 10 SCC 689).
18. In view of the above, the law on the issue can be summarized to the effect that a person who purchases land subsequent to the issuance of a Section 4 notification with respect to it, is not competent to challenge the validity of the acquisition proceedings on any ground whatsoever, for the reason that the sale deed executed in his favour does not confer upon him, any title and at the most he can claim compensation on the basis of his vendor's title....."
6. Under the circumstances, at the instance of the present petitioner, we cannot grant any relief of a nature prayed. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed. Notice is discharged.
(AKIL KURESHI, J.) (MOHINDER PAL, J.) Page 4 of 5 HC-NIC Page 4 of 5 Created On Fri Oct 30 01:13:40 IST 2015 C/SCA/14020/2012 ORDER KMGThilake) Page 5 of 5 HC-NIC Page 5 of 5 Created On Fri Oct 30 01:13:40 IST 2015