IMPORTANT POINTS
Purchase of land after notification u/s 4 is void ab initio.
No benefit can be claimed on basis of a void transaction.
Unauthorised re-entry does not confer any right.
It is not open to a Bench to take a different view ignoring decisions of coordinate and larger Benches by wrongly distinguishing them.
When the present Bench differs from that of a coordinate Bench and follows decisions of larger Benches prior to and after the decision in question, there will be no need to refer that decision to larger Bench.

JUDGMENT :

ARUN MISHRA, J.

1. The question involved in the matter is whether a purchaser of the property after issuance of notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, “the 1894 Act”), can invoke the provisions contained in section 24 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (for short, "the Act of 2013").

2. Notification No.F.10(29)/96/L&B/LA/11394, dated 27.10.1999, was issued for the acquisition of the land situated in the revenue estate of Village Pansali, Delhi, for the public purpose of the Rohini Residential Scheme under planned development of Delhi. It was followed by the declaration under section 6 issued on 3.4.2000. Possession was taken on 12.5.2000. Subsequently, the petitioners purchased the land on 5.7.2001 by way of Registered Sale Deed executed by one Satya Narain, the Power of Attorney holder of original owners. The purchasers then participated in the proceedings for the determination of compensation under sections 9 and 10 of the 1894 Act. The award was passed on 3.4.2002. In the meanwhile, an unauthorized colony came up with the name of Deep Vihar, Pansali, Pooth Kalan, Delhi. The petitioners claimed that they continued in the actual physical possession of the land even after passing of the award on 17.09.2008 and the same formed part of the unauthorized colony. The Government of NCT of Delhi provisionally regularised the colony. The Act of 2013 came in force from 1.1.2014. The respondents never took the actual physical possession of the land; as such, the acquisition has lapsed. The purchasers/petitioners filed a writ petition at the High Court of Delhi. A Division Bench of the High Court has dismissed the writ application.

3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the purchasers submitted that the High Court has erred in rejecting the writ application on the ground that the purchasers after issuance of notification under section 4 of the 1894 Act cannot question the land acquisition. The decision runs contrary to the dictum laid down by this Court in Government (NCT of Delhi) v. Manav Dharam Trust & Anr. (2017) 6 SCC 751. Learned counsel further submitted that the High Court has also erred in dismissing the writ application on the ground that petitioners have admitted that the property is part of the unauthorized colony of Deep Vihar.

4. Shri K.M. Natraj learned Additional Solicitor General has supported the impugned judgment and order and submitted that the purchase made after the notification issued under section 4 of the 1894 Act and declaration under section 6 is void. The purchasers had acquired no right, and they cannot question the land acquisition, nor they can invoke the provisions contained in section 24 of the Act of 2013. It was further submitted that decision in Manav Dharam Trust (supra) is per incuriam because of a large number of decisions of this Court holding that sale made after issuance of notification under section 4 is void.

5. It is crystal clear that for seeking the relief under section 24, the proceedings for taking possession under Act of 1894 have been put into question as illusory one, and possession continues with appellants. The decision in Manav Dharam Trust (supra) has been mainly relied upon by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the purchasers/petitioners in which a Division Bench opined that subsequent purchasers are affected by the acquisition. Therefore, they are entitled to seek a declaration of the lapse of acquisition under the Act of 2013. It has further opined that since declaration is sought, the challenge is not to the acquisition proceedings. Because of the operation of section 24(2) of the 2013 Act, the ratio of the various cases decided by this Court under the Act of 1894, has no application to such situations. It has observed thus:

“21. All the decisions cited by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants, no doubt, have categorically held that