ORDER

1. In view of the fact that the respondents had purchased the property on 21-5-1983, they cannot have any higher right than what the owner had. Admittedly, the owner had not challenged the notification. Awasthi was thesubsequent purchaser from Chote Lal. Notice was given to Chote Lal and Awasthi had not challenged the notification. Therefore, it is not open to the respondents to challenge the notification after they had purchased the property in question. Under these circumstances, the High Court was clearly in error in allowing the Writ Petition No. 15781 of 1983. The appeal is accordingly allowed. No costs.

CAs Nos. 3942 and 3943 of 1995 [Arising out of SLPs (C) Nos. 2886 of 1986 and 2899 of 1986]

2. Leave granted.

3. In view of the order in civil appeal arising out of SLP (C) No. 1143 of 1986, these appeals are allowed. No costs.

CAs No. 3941 of 1995 [Arising out of SLP (C) No. 2885 of 1986]

4. Though notice was served on the respondent, nobody appears for him. Leave granted. In Gauri Shankar Gaur v. State of U.P. this Court, one of us - K. Ramaswamy, J., elaborately considered and held that certain provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1 of 1894, were incorporated in the Stat