Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 1658 (ALL)

ASIAN TOWNSVILLE FARMS LTD. v. STATE OF U. P.

2016-05-02

SHAMSHER BAHADUR SINGH, SUDHIR AGARWAL

body2016
JUDGMENT By the Court.—Heard Sri N.P. Singh, Advocate, for petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for State-respondent and Sri Shivam Yadav, Advocate, for New Okhla Industrial Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as “NOIDA”). 2. Petitioner, M/s Asian Townsville Farms Ltd., has come up to this Court by filing this writ petition under Article 226/227 of Constitution of India in the year 2000 assailing Notifications for acquisition of land issued under Section 4 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as “Act, 1894”) dated 28.1.1994 and under Section 6 dated 10.11.1995. Possession of acquired land was taken on 28.6.1999 and 29.6.1999 and transferred to beneficiary, for whose benefit land was acquired, i.e., NOIDA. 3. The dispute in the present case pertains to land which is part of Khasra No. 16 in village Sadarpur, Tehsil Dadari, District Gautambudh Nagar, area 25-8-0. It is admitted by petitioner in paras 4, 5 and 6 of writ petition that land in question was owned by Babu Ram and several others and therefrom petitioner purchased disputed land through two registered sale-deeds dated 11.10.1999. 4. Learned Standing Counsel and counsel appearing for NOIDA-respondent No. 3, at the outset, stated that acquisition Notifications were issued under Sections 4 and 6 of Act, 1894 on 28.1.1994 and 10.11.1995 respectively and possession was also taken in June’ 1999, while petitioners purchased disputed land, which was already acquired and vested in State, by two registered sale-deeds dated 11.10.1999. Hence the aforesaid documents do not confer or transfer any title of disputed land to it and in any case, petitioner being subsequent purchaser, has no right or locus standi to challenge acquisition proceedings and at the best, may claim part of compensation/value of acquired land pursuant to the aforesaid documents. 5. The only question, therefore, which if answered in favour of respondents, would go to the root of matter is “whether petitioner, who is subsequent purchaser can challenge acquisition proceedings after a declaration is made under Section 6 of Act, 1894?”. 6. This question came to be considered before Supreme Court in U.P. Jal Nigam v. Kalra Properties Pvt. Ltd., 1996 (3) SCC 124 , where it observed in para 3 of judgment, as under: “3. ... 6. This question came to be considered before Supreme Court in U.P. Jal Nigam v. Kalra Properties Pvt. Ltd., 1996 (3) SCC 124 , where it observed in para 3 of judgment, as under: “3. ... It is well-settled law that after the notification under Section 4(1) is published in the gazette any encumbrance created by the owner does not bind the Government and the purchaser does not acquire any title to the property.” 7. In Sneh Prabha v. State of U.P., 1996 (7) SCC 426 , the Court said: “5. .... It is settled law that any person who purchases land after publication of the notification under Section 4(1), does so at his/her own peril. The object of publication of the notification under Section 4(1) is notice to everyone that the land is needed or is likely to be needed for public purpose and the acquisition proceedings point out an impediment to anyone to encumber the land acquired thereunder. It authorises the designated officer to enter upon the land to do preliminaries etc. Therefore, any alienation of land after the publication of the notification under Section 4(1) does not bind the Government or the beneficiary under the acquisition. On taking possession of the land, all rights, titles and interests in land stand vested in the State, under Section 16 of the Act, free from all encumbrances and thereby absolute title in the land is acquired thereunder.” 8. In Ajay Krishan Shinghal etc. v. Union of India and others, 1996 (10) SCC 721 , the Court in para 13 of judgment referring to its earlier decisions in State of U.P. v. Smt. Pista Devi and others, AIR 1986 SC 2025 ; Gian Chand v. Gopala and others, 1995 (2) SCC 528 ; Mahavir and another v. Rural Institute, Amravati and another, 1995 (5) SCC 335 and Laxmi Engineering Works v. P.S.G. Industrial Institute, 1995 (3) SCC 583 , held that it is a settled proposition that after Notification under Section 6 is published, property under acquisition cannot be transferred and any such transaction is void. The subsequent purchaser at the best can only claim compensation of acquired land claiming interest in the land which his predecessor-in-title had. 9. In Star Wire (India) Ltd. v. State of Haryana and others, 1996 (11) SCC 698 , Court reiterated the aforesaid exposition of law. The subsequent purchaser at the best can only claim compensation of acquired land claiming interest in the land which his predecessor-in-title had. 9. In Star Wire (India) Ltd. v. State of Haryana and others, 1996 (11) SCC 698 , Court reiterated the aforesaid exposition of law. The aforesaid authorities were followed in Meera Sahni v. Lieutenant Governor of Delhi and others, 2008 (9) SCC 177 and in para 21 of judgment, Court said as under: “21. In view of the aforesaid decisions it is by now well-settled law that under the Land Acquisition Act the subsequent purchaser cannot challenge the acquisition proceedings and that he would be only entitled to get the compensation.” 10. When confronted with the aforesaid exposition of law, learned counsel for petitioner could neither dispute the same, nor could place any precedent binding on this Court so as to pursue us to take an otherwise view in the matter. 11. Even otherwise, on merits, the actual submission in the writ petition is that award having not been made under Section 11 and 11A of Act, 1894 within two years from the date of declaration, acquisition has lapsed. 12. This question has already been answered by Apex Court in Satendra Prasad Jain v. State of U.P., AIR 1993 SC 2517 , wherein it has been held that once possession is taken, Section 11A has no application in the matter. 13. Moreover, it may also be relevant to notice that in para 23 of counter-affidavit filed on behalf of State of U.P. and Collector it has been said that before taking possession, notices were served upon land owners in accordance with U.P. Land Acquisition (Determination of Compensation and Declaration of Award by Agreement) Rules, 1997 (hereinafter referred to as “Rules, 1997”) and after payment of eighty per cent compensation to land owners, possession was taken. Para 23 of counter-affidavit is reproduced as under: ^^23- ;g fd ;kfpdk ds izLrj 21 esa of.kZr dFku Lohdkj ugh gSA D;ksafd vtZu ls izHkkfor HkwLokfe;ksa dks dCtk ysus ls iwoZ djkj fu;ekoyh 1997 esa fufgr O;oLFkk ds vUrxZr uksfVl la[;k 1 o 2 Hkstdj 80 izfr'kr izfrdj izkIr djus gsrq lwfpr fd;k x;k mlds mijkUr dCtk izkIr fd;k x;kA ;kph d`"kdksa }kjk djkj fu;ekoyh ds vUrxZr djkj dh dk;Zokgh iw.kZ dj 80 izfr'kr izkIr fd;k x;k gSA^^ “23. That the averment made in para 21 of the petition is not acceptable inasmuch as the landowners affected by the acquisition proceedings were, prior to possession being taken, served with Notice Nos 1 and 2, as required under provisions of the Agreement Rules 1997, calling upon them to collect 80% compensation and only thereafter possession was taken. The petitioner farmers have received 80% amount after completing the agreement formalities under the Agreement Rules.” (English Translation by Court) 14. We do not find that averments made in counter-affidavit have been controverted by petitioner by filing any rejoinder-affidavit as none is available on record. The averments, therefore are un-rebutted. That being so, when erstwhile owners have also received substantial compensation under agreement, there is no scope to challenge acquisition of land in dispute by petitioner, who is subsequent purchaser, through sale-deeds dated 11.10.1999. 15. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances and discussions made above, we find no merit in the writ petition. 16. Dismissed. 17. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.