Land Acquisition Act, 1894: s.4 – Whether a purchaser of the property after issuance of notification under s.4 of the Act of 1894, can invoke the provisions contained in s.24 of the Act of 2013 – Held: An incumbent, who has purchased the land after s.4 notification, has no right to question the acquisition – The Act of 2013 intends to benefit landowners mentioned in the notification under s.4 and not such purchasers who purchase the land after it has been vested in the State – Such purchasers do not have right to receive the higher compensation under the provisions contained in the Act of 2013 – Proviso to s.24(2) makes it clear that in case compensation concerning the majority of landholding has not been deposited, then recorded owner(s) at the time of issuance of notification under s.4 of the Act of 1894 shall have the right to receive the compensation – A transaction effected after s.4 notification is illegal and void – Such void transactions are not validated under the Act of 2013 – Thus, the Act of 2013 does not confer any right on purchaser whose sale is ab initio void – Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 – s.24(2) and its proviso.
Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013: ss.3(c), 3(r) – Affected family, land owner – Meaning of – Discussed. Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013: s.24(2) – Who can claim declaration/rights under s.24(2) for the restoration of land or lapse of acquisition – Held: It cannot be by a person with no title in the land – A person cannot enforce and ripe fruits based on a void transaction to start claiming title and possession of the land by seeking a declaration under s.24 of the Act of 2013; it will amount to conferment of benefit never contemplated by the law – The provision of the Act of 2013 cannot be said to be enabling or authorizing a purchaser after s.4 Notification to question proceeding taken under the Act of 1894 of taking possession – What cannot be done directly cannot be permitted in an indirect manner – Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – s.4.
Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013: s.24(2) – Subsequent purchasers cannot be termed to be affected persons within the provisions of Act of 2013 – Thus, no right can be claimed based on a transfer made by way of execution of Power of Attorney, Will, etc., as it does not create any interest in immovable property.
Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013: Object of the Act – Held: The provisions of the Act of 2013 aim at the acquisition of land with least disturbance to the landowners and other affected families and to provide just and fair compensation to affected families whose land has been acquired or proposed to be acquired or are affected and to make adequate provisions for such affected persons for their rehabilitation and resettlement – The provisions of Act of 2013 aim at ousting all inter-meddlers from the fray by ensuring payment in the bank account of landholders under s.77 of the Act – The intendment of the Act of 2013 is to benefit farmers etc. – Subsequent purchasers cannot be said to be landowners entitled to restoration of land and cannot be termed to be affected persons within the provisions of Act of 2013. Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. An incumbent, who has purchased the land after section 4 notification, has no right to question the acquisition. The Act of 2013 intend to benefit landowners mentioned in the notification under Section 4, not for the benefit of such purchasers who purchase the land after it has been vested in the State. Sub-section 4 of Section 11 of the Act of 2013, which is akin to section 4 of the Act of 1894, contains a prohibition that no person shall make any transaction or cause any transaction of land or create any encumbrance on land from the date of publication of such notification. Without seeking exemption from the Collector, there is a total prohibition on any transaction of land. Whereas the legal position under the Act of 1894 was that a transaction effected after section 4 notification was illegal and void. [Paras 6, 8, 9] [703-F; 709-A-B]
Government (NCT of Delhi) v. Manav Dharam Trust & Anr. (2017) 6 SCC 751 : [2017] 4 SCR 232 –
overruled.
U.P. Jal Nigam, Lucknow through its Chairman & Anr. v. Kalra Properties (P) Ltd., Lucknow & Ors. (1996)
3 SCC 124 : [1996] 1 SCR 683 ; Sneh Prabha (Smt.) & Ors. v. State of U.P. & Anr. (1996) 7 SCC 426 : [1995] 5 Suppl. SCR 264 ; Meera Sahni v. Lieutenant Governor of Delhi & Ors. (2008) 9 SCC 177 : [2008]
10 SCR 1012 ; V. Chandrasekaran & Anr.
v. Administrative Officer & Ors. (2012) 12 SCC 133 : [2012] 10 SCR 603 ; Rajasthan State Industrial Development and Investment Corpn. v. Subhash Sindhi Cooperative Housing Society, Jaipur & Ors. (2013) 5 SCC 427 : [2015] 5 SCR 365 ; Rajasthan Housing Board v. New Pink City Nirman Sahkari Samiti
Ltd. & Anr. (2015) 7 SCC 601 : [2015] 5 SCR 365 ; M. Venkatesh & Ors. v. Commissioner, Bangalore Development Authority, etc. (2015) 17 SCC 1 : [2015]
11 SCR 454 – referred to.
2. The ‘affected family’ has been defined under section 3(c) of the 2013 Act. The affected family includes landowners for whose benefit land is held before the acquisition. A person acquiring interest after section 11 notification cannot be said to be included in the “affected family” at all. Landowner as defined in Section 3(r) is a person who is recorded as the owner of land or building. A purchaser after section 11 cannot be said to be a landowner within the purview of section 3(r). [Paras 10, 12] [709G; 710-F; 711-B-F]
3.1 Section 24(2) provides that in case the award has been passed five years or more prior to the commencement of the Act, but the physical possession of the land has not been taken, or the compensation has not been paid, the said proceedings shall be deemed to have lapsed. In the instant case, there is nothing to doubt that actual physical possession had been taken in 2000. Thus, Section 24(2) is not attracted in the case. Even otherwise, proviso to Section 24(2) does not recognize a purchaser after Section 4 notification inasmuch as it provides that where an award has been made, and the compensation in respect of a majority of land holdings has not been deposited in the account of the beneficiaries, then, all beneficiaries specified in the notification for acquisition issued under the Act of 1894, shall be entitled to compensation under the provisions of the Act of 2013. The proviso makes it clear that in case of compensation concerning the majority of landholding has not been deposited, then recorded owner(s) at the time of issuance of notification under section 4 of the Act of 1894 shall have the right to receive the compensation. Purchasers after section 4 notification have not been given the right to receive the higher compensation under the provisions contained in the Act of 2013. [Paras 16, 17] [713-D-F-H; 714-A ]
3.2 The Act of 2013 presupposes that a person is required to be rehabilitated and resettled. Such a person who has purchased after section 4 notification as sale deed is void under the Act of 1894, cannot claim rehabilitation and resettlement as per policy envisaged under the Act of 2013, as his land has not been acquired, but he has purchased a property which has already been acquired by the State Government, he cannot claim even higher compensation, as per proviso to section 24(2) under the Act of 2013. Given that, the transaction of sale, effected after section 4 notification, is void, is ineffective to transfer the land, such incumbents cannot invoke the provisions of section 24. As the sale transaction did not clothe them with the title when the purchase was made; they cannot claim ‘possession’ and challenge the acquisition as having lapsed under section 24 by questioning the legality or regularity of proceedings of taking over of possession under the Act of 1894. It would be unfair and unjust and against the policy of the law to permit such a person to claim resettlement or claim the land back as envisaged under the Act of 2013. When he has not been deprived of his livelihood but is a purchaser under a void transaction, the outcome of exploitative tactics played upon poor farmers who were unable to defend themselves. Thus, under the provisions of Section 24 of the Act of 2013, challenge to acquisition proceeding of the taking over of possession under the Act of 1894 cannot be made, based on a void transaction nor declaration can be sought under section 24(2) by such incumbents to obtain the land. The Act of 2013 does not confer any right on purchaser whose sale is ab initio void. Such void transactions are not validated under the Act of 2013. No rights are conferred by the provisions contained in the 2013 Act on such a purchaser as against the State. ‘Void is, ab initio,’ a nullity, is inoperative, and a person cannot claim the land or declaration once no title has been conferred upon him to claim that the land should be given back to him. A person cannot enforce and ripe fruits based on a void transaction to start claiming title and possession of the land by seeking a declaration under Section 24 of the Act of 2013; it will amount to conferment of benefit never contemplated by the law. [Paras 18-21] [714-BC-E-H; 715-A-D]
4. The provisions of the Act of 2013 aimed at the acquisition of land with least disturbance to the landowners and other affected families and to provide just and fair compensation to affected families whose land has been acquired or proposed to be acquired or are affected and to make adequate provisions for such affected persons for their rehabilitation and resettlement. The intendment of Act of 2013 is to benefit farmers etc. Subsequent purchasers cannot be said to be landowners entitled to restoration of land and cannot be termed to be affected persons within the provisions of Act of 2013. It is not open to them to claim that the proceedings have lapsed under Section 24(2). Apart from that the claims have been made on transactions based on the power of attorneys, agreements, etc.; as such also they are not entitled to any indulgence and cannot invoke provisions of section 24(2) of the 2013 Act. No right can be claimed based on a transfer made by way of execution of Power of Attorney, Will, etc., as it does not create any interest in immovable property. [Paras 22, 23, 24] [715-F-H; 716-A; 718E]
Suraj Lamp and Industries Pvt. Ltd. through Director v. State of Haryana & Anr.; Mamleshwar Prasad v. Kanahaiya Lal, (1975) 2 SCC 232 ; A.R. Anutulay v. R.S.Nayak (1988) 2 SCC 602 : [1975] 3 SCR 834 ; State of Uttar Pradesh v. Synthetics and Chemicals Ltd. (1991) 4 SCC 139 ; State of B. Shama Rao v. Union Territory of Pondicherry AIR 1967 SC 1480 ;
Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Gurnam Kaur (1989) 1 SCC 101 : [1988] 2 Suppl. SCR 929 ;
Narmada Bachao Andolan (III) v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 2011 SC 1989 : [2011] 6 SCR 443 ; Hyder Consulting (UK) Ltd. v. State of Odisha (2015)
2 SCC 189 : [2014] 14 SCR 1029 ; Sant Lal Gupta v. Modern Coop. Societies Ltd. [2010] 13 SCC 336 : [2010] 13 SCR 621 ; Vineeta Sharma v. Rakesh
Sharma (2019) 6 SCC 162 – referred to.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.