9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (12) TMI 1681X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... where under the court had quashed the order dated 27.2.2004, passed by the Revenue Minister, Government of Karnataka de-notifying the suit land from acquisition. 2. Facts and circumstances giving rise to these petitions are: A. That a preliminary notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act 1894') was issued in respect of huge chunk of land including Survey No.49/1 admeasuring 15 Acres on 6.8.1991 for the benefit of the State Government Houseless Harijan Employees Association (Regd.) (hereinafter referred to as 'Society'). In respect of the same land declaration under Section 6 of the Act 1894 was issued on 15.5.1992. B. At the behest of the then owners of the suit land ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Minister passed an order dated 27.2.2004, directing to de-notify the land from acquisition. F. The order dated 27.2.2004 was not complied with as the Deputy Secretary to the Government of Karnataka raised certain objections and made an endorsement dated 21.9.2005 that the matter had attained finality after being decided by this Court and possession of the land had already been taken and handed over to the respondent-society on 6.9.2002, much prior to the order passed by the Hon'ble Minister. G. The present petitioners filed Writ Petition No.11502 of 2006 etc. before the High Court to quash the endorsement dated 21.9.2005 made by the learned Deputy Secretary, Government of Karnataka. The writ petition stood dismissed on 17.4.2008 in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... also on merits as it had been held by this Court that there was no justification for de-notifying the land. The present petitioners are purchasers of land subsequent to notification under Section 4(1) of the Act 1894, and they could not purchase the land at all. In view of the fact that the appeal filed by the respondent no.3 against the order dated 5.8.1993 was pending before this Court, doctrine of lis pendens would apply. Thus, the petitions are liable to be dismissed. 5. We have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. The facts are not in dispute. At the time of purchase of the suit land by the present petitioners the matter was sub-judice before this Court and if the order o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... condition that the alienation will, in no manner, affect the rights of the other party under any decree which may be passed in the suit unless the property was alienated with the permission of the Court. The transferee cannot deprive the successful plaintiff of the fruits of the decree if he purchased the property pendente lite. [Vide : K. Adivi Naidu & Ors. vs. E. Duruvasulu Naidu & Ors., (1995) 6 SCC 150; Venkatrao Anantdeo Joshi & Ors. vs. Malatibai & Ors., (2003) 1 SCC 722; Raj Kumar vs. Sardari Lal & Ors., (2004) 2 SCC 601; and Sanjay Verma v. Manik Roy & Ors., AIR 2007 SC 1332). 7. In Rajender Singh & Ors. v. Santa Singh & Ors., AIR 1973 SC 2537, while dealing with the application of doctrine of lis pendens, this court held as under: ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oes not bind the State or the beneficiary under the acquisition. In fact, purchase of land after publication of a Section 4 notification in relation to such land, is void against the State and at the most, the purchaser may be a person-interested in compensation, since he steps into the shoes of the erstwhile owner and may therefore, merely claim compensation. Thus, the purchaser cannot challenge the acquisition proceedings. While deciding the said case this court placed reliance on a very large number of its earlier judgments including Leela Ram v. Union of India & Ors., AIR 1975 SC 2112; Smt. Sneh Prabha etc. v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr., AIR 1996 SC 540; Meera Sahni v. Lieutenant Governor of Delhi & Ors., (2008) 9 SCC 177; and Tika ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Association v. State of Karnataka & Ors., AIR 2001 SC 437 held as under: "71. From all this, the ultimate position which emerges is that the acquisition in favour of the appellant was properly initiated by publication of the Notification under Section 4(1) and by the declaration issued under Section 6. The withdrawal of the acquisition under Section 48(1) was vitiated not only because the appellant was not heard but also because the reason for withdrawal was wrong. The High Court erred in dismissing the appellant's writ petition. The decision of the High Court is accordingly set aside. The impugned Notification under Section 48(1) is quashed and the appeal is allowed with costs." (Emphasis added) 13. There is ample evide ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
