9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Whether a notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 in the name of a dead person is a nullity. 2. The validity of the acquisition proceedings when the notification was issued in the name of a deceased individual. 3. The rights of subsequent purchasers of the land after the award was passed. Detailed Analysis: 1. Notification Issued in the Name of a Dead Person: The primary issue in this appeal was whether a notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 issued in the name of a deceased person is a nullity. The appellants contended that the acquisition proceedings were vitiated because the notification was issued in the name of C. Kondappa Naidu, who had died before the issuance of the notification. The court acknowledged that the notification under Section 4(1) was indeed issued in the name of a dead person, but found that the authorities responsible for the notification might not have been aware of the death. 2. Validity of Acquisition Proceedings: The court examined prior judgments to determine the validity of acquisition proceedings under such circumstances. In the case of Muthuswamy v. The State of Tamil Nadu, the court held that if the authorities were aware of the death of the original owner, the proceedings would be vitiated. Similarly, in V. Devaraj and Ors. v. State of Tamil Nadu, it was held that issuing notifications in the name of a dead person vitiates the entire acquisition proceedings. However, in the present case, the court found no evidence that the authorities were aware of the death of C. Kondappa Naidu during the relevant period. 3. Rights of Subsequent Purchasers: The court noted that the appellants had purchased the plots after the award was passed and possession was taken. The appellants' purchase dates were 26.10.1994, 28.9.1992, and 24.2.1993, while the award was passed on 19.12.1991 and possession was taken on 13.8.1992. The court referenced the Supreme Court's judgment in U.P. Jal Nigam v. Kalra Properties (P) Ltd., which held that subsequent purchasers do not have the right to challenge the acquisition proceedings. Consequently, the court concluded that the appellants, as subsequent purchasers, were not entitled to challenge the acquisition proceedings. Conclusion: The court dismissed the appeal, concluding that the general principle that proceedings against a dead person are null and void cannot be imported into proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 unless it is established that the factum of death was brought to the notice of the acquiring authorities at the appropriate stage. The writ appeal was dismissed, and the connected WAMP was also dismissed without any order as to costs.
|
