2008 (7) TMI 944 - SC - Indian Laws

Whether in view of the provisions of Delhi Lands (Restrictions and Transfer) Act, 1972 (for short Delhi Lands Act ), read with the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short Land Acquisition Act ) transfer of land made by the original owner by registering a sale deed on the basis of which mutation was also granted would and could be accepted as legal and valid transfer despite the fact that such land was acquired by the State Government under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act for the public purpose? Held that - In the present case the registering officer appears to have registered the sale deeds illegally and without jurisdiction, as in our considered opinion, none of the pre-requisite conditions laid down under Sections 4, 5 and 8 of the Act, which are required to be strictly complied with for obtaining permission to sell or transfer and also for registering the said documents was complied with, as is required to be done. The transfers made in favour of the appellants by the original land holders by execution of the sale deed, therefor are illegal and without jurisdiction. We have no hesitation in our mind in holding that no title could be conveyed or could pass to the appellants on the basis of such transfer and also that consequential mutation in favour of the appellants for the above reasons is found and held to be without jurisdiction. There was no valid transfer in favour of the appellants and, therefore, there is no question of issuing any direction to the respondents to allot any alternative land to the appellants. So far as the prayer for granting liberty to the appellants to make an application under Sections 4 and 5 of the Delhi Lands Act is concerned, we do not make any observation thereto except for saying that if a statutory remedy is provided for to a person, he is always entitled to take recourse to such remedy in accordance with law. Appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of land transfer under the Delhi Lands (Restrictions and Transfer) Act, 1972 and the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
2. Validity of notifications and declarations under Sections 4, 6, and 9 of the Land Acquisition Act.
3. Competence of the authority granting permission for land transfer.
4. Entitlement of subsequent purchasers to challenge acquisition proceedings.
5. Compliance with statutory requirements for land transfer.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Legality of Land Transfer:
The primary issue was whether the transfer of land, acquired by the State Government under the Land Acquisition Act for public purposes, could be considered legal and valid under the Delhi Lands (Restrictions and Transfer) Act, 1972. The court examined whether the sale deeds executed by the original owner and the subsequent mutation were legally valid despite the land being acquired for public purposes. The court concluded that any transfer of land after the issuance of a notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act is void and not binding on the government.

2. Validity of Notifications and Declarations:
The legality of notifications and declarations issued under Sections 4, 6, and 9 of the Land Acquisition Act was challenged by various landholders. The court upheld the validity of these notifications, referencing past judgments such as Roshanara Begum v. Union of India and Murari and others v. Union of India, which confirmed the legality of the acquisition proceedings for the planned development of Delhi.

3. Competence of the Authority Granting Permission:
The court scrutinized whether the permissions for land transfer were granted by the competent authority as defined under the Delhi Lands Act. It was determined that the permissions/NOCs relied upon by the appellants were not issued by the Additional District Magistrate (Revenue), the only authorized competent authority. Instead, they were issued by unauthorized individuals, rendering the permissions invalid.

4. Entitlement of Subsequent Purchasers:
The court reiterated that subsequent purchasers of land, after the issuance of a notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, cannot challenge the acquisition proceedings. They are only entitled to compensation. This principle was supported by several precedents, including U.P. Jal Nigam v. Kalra Properties and Sneh Prabha v. State of U.P.

5. Compliance with Statutory Requirements:
The court emphasized the necessity of strict compliance with statutory requirements for land transfer. The appellants failed to provide evidence of proper applications or valid permissions as required under Sections 4 and 5 of the Delhi Lands Act. The court highlighted that actions must be performed in the prescribed manner, referencing the principle laid down in Babu Verghese v. Bar Council of Kerala.

Conclusion:
The court found that the transfers made in favor of the appellants were illegal and without jurisdiction, as they did not comply with the statutory requirements. Consequently, no title could be conveyed to the appellants, and the subsequent mutation was also without jurisdiction. The appeals were dismissed with costs, upholding the decisions of the lower courts. The court also dismissed the appellants' request for remand and their prayer for alternative land allotment, emphasizing that statutory remedies must be pursued in accordance with the law.