Back
Gujarat High Court
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ravi R. Tripathi & Hon’ble Mr. Justice Mohinder Pal
Mayur Non Trading Corporation Through President & Anr.
Versus
State of Gujarat Through Secretary & Ors.
Special Civil Application No. 7105 of 2013—Decided on 22/01/2014
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (Central Act 1 of 1894) — Sections 4, 6 and 12(2) — Acquisition proceedings — Petition to declare vitiated in view of notification under Section 12(2) of the Act or alternatively pay compensation — Sustainability — Finding of — Tracing the history of the matter and analysing facts leading to the present petition Court observed that not a single word is said on behalf of petitioners that how Petitioner No. 2 “Jamnagar Industrial Infrastructure Foundation” acquired any interest in the Land in question whereby he can join petition as petitioner — This shows that the present petition is filed by persons who can certainly be branded “Unscrupulous persons” who are out to dupe the original land owners under the guise of entering into the shoes of the original land owners — Besides it is a settled Law that a person who purchases land as in the case after publication of a Section 4 notification with respect to it is not entitled to challenge the proceedings for the reason that his title is void and he can at best claim compensation on the basis of vendors’ title — Therefore sale deed of the land after issuance of a Section 4 notification is void and purchaser can not challenge the acquisition proceedings — Court therefore in the facts held that present petition is nothing but a glaring example of mischief being played not only to defraud the original owners but also to the police corporation — GIDC — Petition is therefore not maintainable at all.
Held :
So far, the learned advocate for the petitioners has not uttered a word explaining as to how ‘Petitioner No. 2’ acquired any interest in the land in question whereby he can join petition as petitioner. This is sufficient to show that the present petition is filed by the persons, who can certainly be branded as ‘unscrupulous persons’, who are out to dupe the original land owners under the guise of entering into the shoes of the original land owners. [Para 9]
The issue of maintainability of the writ petitions by the person who purchases the land subsequent to a notification being issued under Section 4 of the Act has been considered by this Court time and again. [Para 11]
This Court categorically held that, a person who purchases land after the publication of a Section 4 notification with respect to it, is not entitled to challenge the proceedings for the reason, that his title is void and he can at best claim compensation on the basis of vendor’s title. In view of this, the sale of land after issuance of a Section 4 notification is void and the purchaser cannot challenge the acquisition proceedings.
[Para 11]
Law Laid Down :
The purchase of land after publication of a Section 4 notification in relation to such Land is void.
Ravi R. Tripathi, J.—Skeletons are not unknown in judicial matters, particularly, when plaintiff or petitioner dies, his heirs are brought on record. But the case on hand is a unique case wherein except fraud and misrepresentation nothing else is coming out.
To start with the present petition, the present petition being Special Civil Application No. 7105 of 2013 is filed by two petitioners, (i) Mayur Non Trading Corporation through its President, Mahmad Ismail Salemahmad Merchant and (ii) Jamnagar Industrial Infrastructure Foundation, through its Chairman, named, Jamabhai Shamjibhai Faldu and relief prayed for in this petition are as under:
“17(B) Declare that the proceedings of acquisition arising from the notification under Section 4 dated 8.3.1994 followed by Section 6 notification dated 1.5.1996 in award dated 30.9.1999 qua land bearing Survey No. 708 ad measuring ares 13 gunthas and 70ad measuring 23 acres 16 gunthas have stood vitiated in view Section 12(2) notice dated 1.9.2012 (Annexure L) and quash and set aside the entire proceedings accordingly in the interest of justice.
(C) Alternatively, declare that in view of date of notice under Section 12(2) dated..2012 (Annexure L) the petitioners are entitled for compensation of their lands at the market value prevailing as per the recent Jantri as on 1.9.2012 with all other consequential benefits and interest etc. available to them under the law.
(D) Your Lordships be pleased to quash and set aside notification dated 8.3.94 and award dated 30.9.1999 as also subsequent notice dated 1.9.2012 issued for taking possession from the petitioners by declaring that the award is nullity and therefore, consequential notices are illegal and bad in law.” (emphasis supplied)
2. In the opening of the matter the Court inquired as to how come these petitioners have right to challenge the acquisition proceedings which started in the year 1994 with issuance of Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, on 25.03.1994 (the petitioners have mentioned it to be 08.03.1994) and Notification under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act was dated 01.05.1986 and award was passed on 30.09.1999. The learned advocate for the petitioners submitted that the matter is having a little chequred history and that these petitioners have become owners of the land by virtue of unregistered agreement to sell which was of the year 1981. He gave date of unregistered agreement to sell to be 11.02.1981. It is good that non-trading association restricted the exercise of stretching date only upto 1981. Otherwise, he could have said that the agreement to sell was yet older.
The learned advocate for the petitioners, after the matter was heard for quite some time and when repeatedly inquired about registered sale deed which he mentioned yesterday, viz. 21.01.2014, to be 06.11.1986, submitted that, ‘there is no registered sale deed, but registered agreement to sell,viz. Dated 30.10.1986 is there’. We then inquired as to when non trading association was registered. The learned advocate for the petitioners said that it was registered on 08.10.1986. (emphasis supplied)
The intentions and ulterior motives can be culled out right from day one of the entire exercise undertaken by the present petitioners after having come to know that there is Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act in the year 1994. They planned to dupe the original land owners and that is why by creating a story that there was an agreement to sell of the year 1981, then non trading corporation was registered in the year 1986, a registered agreement to sell dated 30.10.1986 was executed. They managed to get seal of the court on this entire ill design by filing Special Civil Suit in the Court of the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Jamnagar bearing Special Civil Suit No. 148 of 1996. A copy of the plaint is produced at Annexure ‘K’, page
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
