IMPORTANT POINTS
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.
2.Once the land is vested in the State free from encumbrances, it cannot be divested.

Headnote:Land Acquisition Act 1894-Sections 4,6,Petitions against judgment and order passed by High Court in Writ Appeal affirming the judgment of Single Judge passed in Writ Petition by which and whereunder court quashed the order passed by Revenue Minister de-notifying the suit land from acquisition-Petitioners case that as there was no interim order in appeal filed by respondent 3, petitioners had a right to purchase land during the pendency of the litigation and would not be bound by order of Court quashing the de-notification of acquisition proceedings-Held The transferee cannot deprive the successful plaintiff of fruits of the decree if he purchased the property pendente lite-Hence it was not permissible to say that in case petitioners had purchased suit property during pendency of the appeal filed byrespondent no.3 before this Court, the petitioners were not bound by final orders of this Court-No cogent reason to accept any plea taken by the petitioners that they could purchase the suit land even subsequent to Section 4 notification-Petitions having no merit dismissed (Paras 8 to 15)
        Doctrine of lispendens-Scope and ambit of- Doctrine of lispendens is based on legal maxim 'ut litependentenihilinnovetur' -During a litigation nothing new should be introduced- The principle of 'lispendens' is in accordance with the equity, good conscience or justice because they rest upon an equitable and just foundation that it will be impossible to bring an action or suit to a successful termination if alienations are permitted to prevail- A transfereependente lite is bound by decree just as much as he was a party to the suit- A litigating party is exempted from taking notice of a title acquired during the pendency of the litigation.- However, mere pendency of a suit does not prevent one of the parties from dealing with property constituting the subject matter of the suit-The law simply postulates a condition that the alienation will, in no manner, affect the rights of other party under any decree which may be passed in the suit unless the property was alienated with the permission of Court- The transferee cannot deprive the successful plaintiff of fruits of the decree if he purchased the property pendente lite (Para 6)
       Facts of the Case :
        Present petitions have been filed against the judgment and order , passed by the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in Writ Appeal No.1421 of 2008 etc. affirming the judgment of theSingle Judge dated 17.4.2008 passed in Writ Petition No. 11502/2006, by which and whereunder the court had quashed the order, passed by the Revenue Minister, Government of Karnataka de-notifying the suit land from acquisition.
       Findings of the Court :
        The Supreme Court held that transferee cannot deprive the successful plaintiff of the fruits of the decree if he purchased the property pendente lite. Hence there was no cogent reason to accept any plea taken by the petitioners that they could purchase the suit land even subsequent to Section 4 notification.
       Result : Petitions dismissed

JUDGMENT

Dr. B.S. Chauhan, J.

1. These petitions have been filed against the judgment and order dated 24.10.2011, passed by the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in Writ Appeal No.1421 of 2008 etc. affirming the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 17.4.2008 passed in Writ Petition No. 11502/2006, by which and whereunder 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 the Government de-notified the land from acquisition vide order dated 5.8.1993 issuing notification under Section 48(1) of the Act 1894.

C. Aggrieved the respondent no.3-Society challenged the said order of de-notifying the land from acquisition by filing Writ Petition which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge. The said order was also affirmed by the Division Bench dismissing the Writ Appeal preferred by the Society. The Society approached this court by filing special leave petitions which were entertained and finally heard Civil Appeal No. 5015/1999 etc. and this court vide judgment and order dated 11.12.2000 quashed the order dated 5.8.1993 de-notifying the suit land from acquisition.

D. During the pendency of Civil Appeal No.5015 of 1999 etc. filed by the respondent-society, the present petitioners purchased the suit land in the years 1997-1998 and approached the Government of Karnataka to de-notify the said land from acquisition. As their application for release was not dealt with by the Government, they preferred Writ Petition Nos.19968-97 of 2002 etc. before the High Court for directions to the Government to release the land.

E. The High Court vide judgment and order dated 19.2.2003 disposed of the said writ petition, directing the Government to decide their application in accordance with law expeditiously. In pursuance of the High Court order, the Government of Karnataka issued notice to all concerned parties and against all the parties the Hon’ble Revenue 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 terms of the judgment of the same date in a similar case, i.e. Writ Petition No.9857 of 2006 (M.V. Kasturi & Ors. v. State of Karnataka & Ors.).

H. Aggrieved, petitioners preferred a Writ Appeal No. 1421/2008 which has been dismissed by the impugned judgment and order.

Hence, these petitions.

3. Shri Kailash Vasdev, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the courts below have committed an error in dismissing the case of the petitioners as the courts failed to appreciate the legal issues. This Court set aside the order of de-notification dated 5.8.1993 on a technical ground as the order of de- notification was passed without hearing the respondent-society for whose benefit the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2013 Supreme(SC) 1096

SUPREME COURT OF INDIAB.S. CHAUHAN & S.A. BOBDE, JJ.K.N. Aswathnarayana Setty (D) Tr. LRs. & OthersVersusState of Karnataka & Others Special Leave Petition (C) No. 22311 of 2012 with SLP (C) Nos. 22307-22309 of 2012Decided on : 02-12-2013

Cases Referred (16)

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
B.S. CHAUHAN & S.A. BOBDE, JJ.
K.N. Aswathnarayana Setty (D) Tr. LRs. & Others
Versus
State of Karnataka & Others
Special Leave Petition (C) No. 22311 of 2012 with SLP (C) Nos. 22307-22309 of 2012
Decided on : 02-12-2013