Subsequent purchasers of land cannot challenge acquisition proceedings if the purchase occurred after the Notification under Section 4, as such sales are void against the State.

JUDGMENT :

(Per M. S. Sonak, J .)

1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.

2. Rule. The Rule is made returnable immediately at the request of and with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties.

3. Learned Counsel for the parties agree that a common judgment and order can dispose of these Petitions. They submit that Writ Petition No. 8011 of 2017 may be treated as the lead Petition.

4. In Writ Petition No. 8011 of 2017, the Petitioner had applied for the following reliefs: -

A) For a writ to call for the records.

B) For a writ to quash the declaration dated 12 June 2012 concerning the subject property;

C) For a writ to quash the consent award dated 07 April 2015 regarding the subject property.

CC) For a declaration that the acquisition proceedings for the subject property have lapsed.

D) For a writ to set aside an order/letter dated 28 August 2015 (Exhibit -L) refusing to act on Petitioner’s objection dated 18 June 2015 regarding the consent award dated 07 April 2015.

5. The Petitioner claims an interest in the property bearing No. 352, Hissa No. 2, measuring 1004 sq. mtr in village Vahal, Tal. Panvel, Dist. Raigad (“the subject property”). This interest is asserted based on a conveyance dated 02 August 2014 (Exhibit-F at pg. 95 onward) executed by Naveen Nath, who is allegedly a Power of Attorney holder for Respondent Nos. 4 to 6, the original owners of the subject property.

6. Large tracts of land, including the subject property, were found necessary for the public purpose of a New Bombay project. Accordingly, the appropriate Government issued a Notification dated 27 April 2011 under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (the LA Act) (Exhibit C at pg 82). This included the subject property in which the Petitioner claims an interest.

7. A declaration under Section 6 was issued on 04 June 2012, and the Deputy Collector (Land Acquisition), Metro Center No. 1, Panvel, was appointed as the Competent Officer to perform the functions of the Collector under Section 3 (C) of the LA Act (Exhibit D at Pg. 87).

8. After the issue of Section 4 and Section 6 Notification, the Petitioner, vide conveyance dated 02 August 2014, claims to have purchased the subject property. As noted earlier, this conveyance deed was signed by Naveen Nath, who claimed to be the Power of Attorney holder of Respondent Nos. 4 to 6, i.e., the original owners. Thus, it is clear that the Petitioner claims to have acquired an interest in the subject property after the issuance of Section 4 Notification and Section 6 declaration.

9. The Petitioner has pleaded that on 05 October 2007, Respondent Nos. 4 to 6 had entered into a development agreement with “Tanglin Property Developments (Mumbai) Private Limited” (for short, ‘Tanglin’). Pursuant to such development agreement, Respondent Nos. 4 to 6 is stated to have given a power of attorney to Naveen Nath, an employee of Tanglin, possibly to undertake the development works. Based upon this power of attorney, it appears that Naveen Nath, by conveyance dated 02 August 2014, executed almost 2 to 3 years after the issue of Section 4 and 6 Notifications, has purported to sell the subject property to the Petitioner.

10. The Respondent Nos. 4 to 6 or their legal representatives have strongly disputed the transaction. Initially, Mr. Punde, learned Counsel for the Petitioner, claimed that the Petitioner paid an amount of Rs.30 Lakhs to Respondent Nos. 4 to 6. However, when challenged by Mr Wakshe, learned Counsel representing Respondent Nos. 4 to 6, Mr. Punde, corrected himself and stated that this amount was paid to Naveen Nath and not directly to Respondent Nos. 4 to 6. Tanglin or Naveen Nath have not been impleaded as Respondents in this Petition.

11. Based on the conveyance dated 02 August 2014, the Petitioner, by communication dated 04 August 2014 informed the Deputy Collector that she was now the owner of the subject property (Exhibit-G at pg. 152). The Petitioner has claimed that the Deputy Collector acknowledged this on 05 A