JUDGMENT R.R. Tripathi, J. 1. Petitioner, Vyas Kiritbhai Chandrakantbhai, is before this Court praying that: "21. (A) This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to admit and allow the present Special Civil Application. (B) This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to quash and set aside the impugned order passed by respondent No. 1 dated 6-9-2013 by holding the same to be illegal, arbitrary, unjust and violative of Arts. 14 and 19 of the Constitution of India, by issuing suitable writ, order or direction under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India. (C) This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to hold and declare that the respondent No. 1 has no authority or jurisdiction to decline the request of the petitioner for making application under Sec. 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, by way of issuing suitable writ, order or direction under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India. (D) This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to direct the respondent No. 1 to immediately refer the reference application of the petitioner dated 9-2-2012 to the Reference Court for determining the market value of the land in question according to law by way of issuing suitable writ, order or direction under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India....." The facts in nutshell are that the petitioner purchased agricultural land by a registered sale-deed, a copy of which is produced at page 95 as a part of the reply by the petitioner to the Mamlatdar in response to his letter dated 8-6-2012 which is produced at Annexure-E running from pages 85 to 106. Though the learned Advocate for the petitioner did not initially invite the attention of the Court to the contents of Mamlatdar's letter dated 8-6-2012, learned A.G.P. Mr. Rashesh Rindani invited the attention of the Court to the contents of that letter and submitted that the Mamlatdar has replied to the petitioner stating that the amount of compensation is wrongly paid by him and the same should be refunded to the authorities so as to see that the same is paid to the original land owner whose name appears in the communication dated 16-5-2012 of Executive Engineer, Narmada Yojana Canal Section No. 10, bearing No. J.N.N.U.N.N.V. No. 10/AB-3/J.S./2135/2012. 2. On perusal of the registered sale-deed, it is noticed that the sale-deed is dated 1-2-1996. 2. On perusal of the registered sale-deed, it is noticed that the sale-deed is dated 1-2-1996. It will be important at this stage to note and put it on record that the sale-deed is in favour of five persons. First four are the petitioner himself and his family members. Fifth one is one Jugal Kishore Shah. Learned Advocate for the petitioner says that he is a friend of the petitioner. It is not material as to whether he is a friend or a foe of the petitioner. What is important is that he is an odd-man-out in the list of purchasers of the agricultural land. Learned Advocate for the petitioner could not give any convincing reason as to why petitioner No. 5 is included in a family deal whereby the family purchased agricultural land. While perusing the registered sale-deed, a question arose to this Court as to whether the persons, who are the purchasers of the land, are agriculturists or not. The Court enquired from the learned Advocate for the petitioner about this. Learned Advocate for the petitioner in turn asked for some time. Time was granted and on enquiry learned Advocate for the petitioner states that all the five persons are agriculturists and they have certificate to that effect in their possession. The Court is not able to accept this statement of the learned Advocate for the petitioner for manifold reasons like: (i) In the registered sale-deed itself, it is mentioned that petitioner Kiritbhai Chandrakantbhai Vyas is in business; (ii) It is mentioned about Bhartiben Kiritbhai Vyas (wife of the petitioner) that she is also in business; (iii) So far as No. 3 Anand Kiritbhai Vyas is concerned, he is aged 20 years and the occupation shown is 'studying'; (iv) So far as No. 4 Amit Kiritbhai Vyas is concerned, he is aged 18 years and his occupation is also shown to be 'studying'; (v) So far as No. 5 Jugal Kishorebhai Shah is concerned, his age is not mentioned. It is mentioned that he is a 'major' and his occupation is mentioned to be 'studying'. All this is required to be stated because the vehement submission of learned Advocate for the petitioner is that the petitioner is an interested person in the land, and therefore, by virtue of the pronouncement of the Hon'ble the Apex Court, he has entered into the shoes of the original land owner. All this is required to be stated because the vehement submission of learned Advocate for the petitioner is that the petitioner is an interested person in the land, and therefore, by virtue of the pronouncement of the Hon'ble the Apex Court, he has entered into the shoes of the original land owner. When this Court is to exercise discretionary jurisdiction in favour of a person approaching this Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution, this Court is of the opinion that it is the duty of the Court to enquire into the status and the averments in that regard made by the petitioner, because if this Court even prima facie comes to the conclusion that the document is not a genuine one and it is executed after Sec. 4 Notification was published in the year 1994 and the land is purchased from the original land owner only with a view to see that the purchaser is able to strike a fortune by such purchase, the Court can always and is duty bound to deny exercise of its discretionary power in favour of such person. 3. Learned Advocate for the petitioner submitted that though the land was acquired in the year 1994, possession of the land was not taken from the original land owner. Not only that, when it was enquired from the learned Advocate for the petitioner as to what did the purchaser enquire at the time of purchasing the land in question, learned Advocate for the petitioner submitted that there is a statement made in the sale-deed (registered) that the land is not under any acquisition for construction of canal by Narmada Yojana. Why was such specific averment required in the registered sale-deed? This indicates that the purchaser knew about the acquisition proceeding and in an attempt to overcome that difficulty, a specific mention was made in the registered sale-deed that, "this land is not subject to any land acquisition proceeding under the Land Acquisition Act for the purpose of constructing canal by Narmada Yojana". 3.1. Though the petitioner purchased the land in the year 1996 by registered sale-deed, he is not able to tell the Court as to when - on what exact date possession of the property was taken from the petitioner. 3.1. Though the petitioner purchased the land in the year 1996 by registered sale-deed, he is not able to tell the Court as to when - on what exact date possession of the property was taken from the petitioner. Learned Advocate for the petitioner states that possession was taken in absence of the petitioner and further states that the officer has conveyed to him that no notice was given before taking possession. This Court is at a loss as to why would any officer will come forward and oblige the petitioner by saying that no notice was given before taking possession. Is it not something which speaks about the resourcefulness of the petitioner? The question remains that possession of the land was taken, if believed, after the land was purchased by the petitioner in 1996. 3.2. There is a definite reason for keeping back this particular date of taking possession by the authority. The reason appears to be to justify the fact that the petitioner became active only in the year 2010-11. As a consequence of he having become active, he received compensation on 25-1-2012. It is thereafter that the petitioner applied for a copy of the award. The learned Advocate for the petitioner submitted that a copy of the award was supplied on 7-2-2012 and immediately thereafter the petitioner filed an application under Sec. 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, a copy of which is produced at Annexure-C (Page 77). This application is rejected on the ground that "He is not the original land owner". Learned Advocate for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner gets into the shoes of the original land owner at least for the purpose of getting compensation, as held by the Hon'ble the Apex Court in the matter of V. Chandrasekaran v. Administrative Officer, reported in 2012 (9) SCALE 142 . Learned Advocate invited the attention of the Court to Para 6 of the judgment. The same is reproduced hereunder for ready perusal: "6. The issue of maintainability of the writ petitions by the person who purchases the land subsequent to a notification being issued under Sec. 4 of the Act has been considered by this Court time and again. Learned Advocate invited the attention of the Court to Para 6 of the judgment. The same is reproduced hereunder for ready perusal: "6. The issue of maintainability of the writ petitions by the person who purchases the land subsequent to a notification being issued under Sec. 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 anyone who deals with the land subsequent to a Sec. 4 notification being issued, does so, at his own peril, In Sneh Prabhu v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1996 SC 540 , this Court held that a Sec. 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 anyone 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, JT 1995 (6) SC 274." Learned Advocate for the petitioner also invited the attention of the Court to Para 9 of the said judgment, which reads as under: "9. In view of the above, the law on the issue can be summarised to the effect that a person who purchases land subsequent to the issuance of a Sec. 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." (Emphasis supplied) 3.3. From the highlighted portion, it is clear that the sale-deed executed in favour of the purchaser does not confer any title on the purchaser. This was with reference to the right of the purchaser to challenge the acquisition proceedings. 4. In case on hand, the position is still worst. It is a transaction of purchase of agricultural land. From the highlighted portion, it is clear that the sale-deed executed in favour of the purchaser does not confer any title on the purchaser. This was with reference to the right of the purchaser to challenge the acquisition proceedings. 4. In case on hand, the position is still worst. It is a transaction of purchase of agricultural land. Learned Advocate for the petitioner, except making a bald oral statement, is not able to point out that the purchasers, including the petitioner, are agriculturists, and therefore, this Court is of the opinion that they are not entitled to get anything by virtue of that registered sale-deed. 'At the most', so is the language of the Hon'ble the Apex Court, the petitioner, if so advised, may file a suit against the original land owner for having been defrauded. The Hon'ble the Apex Court has observed that, "if the purchaser is able to get something from a registered sale-deed, which is otherwise valid, he has right to claim compensation". But in the present case, the purchasers do not get that right. This Court is of the opinion that the said decision is not applicable to the facts of the present case. 5. Beside the aforesaid judgment, learned Advocate for the petitioner relied upon the following judgments: (i) Judgment of the Hon'ble the Apex Court in U.P. Jal Nigam, Lucknow v. Kalra Properties (P) Ltd., reported in 1996 (3) SCC 124 , (ii) Judgment of the Hon'ble the Apex Court in Shanti Sports Club v. Union of India, reported in 2009 (15) SCC 705 , and (iii) Judgment of this High Court in Spl.C.A. No. 14912 of 2010 dated 19-4-2011 in the matter of Patel Naranbhai Jesangbhai v. Special Land Acquisition Officer. This Court is of the opinion that in view of the aforesaid discussion, the subsequent judgments which are cited do not advance the case of the petitioner. 6. This Court is also of the opinion that the Court will be failing in its duty if it does not refer this matter to the Collector for taking necessary action, including that of an inquiry, passing of appropriate orders at the end of the inquiry and placing the same before this Court for its perusal. 7. 6. This Court is also of the opinion that the Court will be failing in its duty if it does not refer this matter to the Collector for taking necessary action, including that of an inquiry, passing of appropriate orders at the end of the inquiry and placing the same before this Court for its perusal. 7. At this juncture, learned Advocate for the petitioner repeatedly requested this Court to take into consideration the submissions made by him and also submitted that he is limiting his submissions only to the extent that the petitioner is 'an interested person' and the 'interested person' is entitled to make a reference under Sec. 18, and therefore, the authority should be directed to entertain the application of the petitioner and reference be made and the same should be decided to determine the amount of compensation. 7.1. This Court is of the opinion that if such a request is entertained at the instance of a person like the petitioner, it will send a wrong message to the society. A person can purchase land knowing fully well that Sec. 4 Notification is already issued. Not only that, thereafter he sits tight over the matter and after considerable lapse of time, in the present case somewhere in the year 2010-11, he approaches the authority and gets the amount of compensation (petitioner was paid compensation on 25-1-2012) and soon thereafter files an application under Sec. 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. In view of the aforesaid 3 discussion, the petition fails. The same is dismissed. Petition dismissed.