9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (10) TMI 1411 - SC - Indian LawsInvocation of provisions contained in section 24 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 - period post issuance of notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - HELD THAT - 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 declaration that acquisition has lapsed under the Act of 2013 is to get the property back whereas, the transaction once void, is always a void transaction, as no title can be acquired in the land as such no such declaration can be sought. It would not be legal, just and equitable to give the land back to purchaser as land was not capable of being sold which was in process of acquisition under the Act of 1894. 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. 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. Appeal dismissed.
Issues Involved:
1. Whether a purchaser of property after the issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, can invoke the provisions of Section 24 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. 2. Validity of transactions made after the notification under Section 4 of the 1894 Act. 3. Entitlement of subsequent purchasers to claim higher compensation or seek a declaration of lapse of acquisition under the Act of 2013. 4. Legal standing of transactions based on Power of Attorney, Agreement to Sell, and Will. 5. Impact of unauthorized colonies on land acquisition proceedings. Detailed Analysis: 1. Invocation of Section 24 of the Act of 2013 by Subsequent Purchasers: The primary issue was whether purchasers of property after the issuance of a notification under Section 4 of the 1894 Act could invoke Section 24 of the 2013 Act. The court held that purchasers who acquired land after such notification have no right to question the acquisition or invoke the provisions of Section 24 of the 2013 Act. The court emphasized that the law is well-settled that any person who purchases land after the publication of the notification does so at their peril, and such transactions are void against the State. 2. Validity of Transactions After Notification Under Section 4: The court reiterated that transactions made after the issuance of a notification under Section 4 of the 1894 Act are void. It cited several precedents, including U.P. Jal Nigam v. Kalra Properties, Sneh Prabha v. State of U.P., and Meera Sahni v. Lieutenant Governor of Delhi, to affirm that subsequent purchasers cannot challenge the acquisition proceedings and are only entitled to compensation. 3. Entitlement to Higher Compensation or Declaration of Lapse: The court clarified that the beneficial provisions of the 2013 Act are intended for landowners mentioned in the notification under Section 4, not for purchasers who acquired land after it had vested in the State. The court noted that Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act does not recognize purchasers after the Section 4 notification as beneficiaries entitled to higher compensation. The proviso to Section 24(2) specifies that compensation should be deposited for the recorded owners at the time of the notification under the 1894 Act. 4. Legal Standing of Transactions Based on Power of Attorney, Agreement to Sell, and Will: The court held that transactions based on Power of Attorney, Agreement to Sell, and Will do not convey any title or create any interest in immovable property. It referred to the decision in Suraj Lamp and Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Haryana, which established that such transactions are not valid modes of transfer and do not confer any rights to the property. 5. Impact of Unauthorized Colonies: The court addressed the issue of unauthorized colonies, noting that the plea of provisional regularization of the colony contradicted the claim of continuous possession. It emphasized that possession taken in an unauthorized manner confers no legal right, and the actual physical possession taken by the State in 2000 was valid. The court concluded that the existence of unauthorized colonies does not affect the validity of the acquisition proceedings. Conclusion: The court dismissed the appeal, holding that subsequent purchasers cannot invoke Section 24 of the 2013 Act to challenge the acquisition or seek higher compensation. Transactions made after the notification under Section 4 of the 1894 Act are void, and purchasers have no legal standing to claim the land or higher compensation. The court also clarified that transactions based on Power of Attorney, Agreement to Sell, and Will are not valid modes of transfer and do not confer any rights to the property.
|
