2012 (9) TMI 951 - SC - Indian Laws

Whether subsequent purchaser can challenge the acquisition proceedings? Whether 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?

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the subsequent purchaser can challenge the acquisition proceedings.
2. Whether the quashing of the declaration under Section 6 in some other case would benefit non-parties.
3. Whether land once vested in the government can be divested.
4. Whether the appellants approached the court with clean hands.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Whether the subsequent purchaser can challenge the acquisition proceedings:
The court held that a person who purchases land after the issuance of a Section 4 notification is not competent to challenge the validity of the acquisition proceedings. This principle has been reiterated in multiple cases such as Pandit Leela Ram v. Union of India, Sneh Prabha v. State of Uttar Pradesh, and U.P. Jal Nigam v. M/s. Kalra Properties Pvt. Ltd. The purchaser can only claim compensation based on the vendor's title, as the sale deed executed in his favor does not confer any title.

2. Whether the quashing of the declaration under Section 6 in some other case would benefit non-parties:
The court emphasized that the relief obtained by some persons cannot benefit others who have belatedly filed their petitions. This principle was supported by cases like Ratan Chandra Sammanta v. Union of India and Abhey Ram v. Union of India, where it was held that quashing of the declaration under Section 6 would not automatically benefit those who did not challenge the acquisition proceedings or file objections under Section 5-A.

3. Whether land once vested in the government can be divested:
The court reaffirmed that once the land is vested in the State, free from all encumbrances, it cannot be divested, even if an award is not made within the stipulated period. This principle has been upheld in cases such as Avadh Behari Yadav v. State of Bihar and U.P. Jal Nigam v. Kalra Properties (P) Ltd. The land, once acquired, cannot be restored to the tenure holders, and the proceedings cannot be withdrawn under Section 48 of the Act or Section 21 of the General Clauses Act.

4. Whether the appellants approached the court with clean hands:
The court found that the appellants did not approach the court with clean hands. They attempted to mislead the authorities and the court by furnishing false information and forged documents. The appellants also managed to obtain certain orders from the department through unfair means and abused the process of the court. The court emphasized that the judicial process should not be used to subvert justice, and those who approach the court must do so with clean hands, a clean mind, and clean objectives.

Conclusion:
The court concluded that the appellants were not entitled to any relief due to their misconduct and the legal principles established in previous judgments. The appeals were dismissed with costs of Rupees Twenty Five lacs, and the Chief Secretary of Tamil Nadu was directed to proceed against the responsible officials and ensure the eviction of the appellants from the public land.