Agreements to sell do not confer title or rights to claim compensation in land acquisition; only the recognized owner can challenge compensation decisions under the Land Acquisition Act.

JUDGMENT :

Birendra Kumar, J. - The parties were heard at length on inter locutory application No. 828/99 whereby National Housing Co-operative Society Limited, Jaipur has sought for impleadment as respondent in the above appeal.

2. The background of this appeal under Section 54 of the LAND ACQUISITION ACT , 1894 (in short 'the Act') is that the State of Rajasthan initiated land acquisition proceedings for development of residential colony in Jaipur. The proceedings were initiated in the year 1974. Under the proceedings, Kahsra No. 21 and 22 area 75 bigha and 15 bisw in village Jhalana Dungri, Sanganer were acquired, however by order dated 11.3.1974, the Land Acquisition Officer did not award any compensation saying that the aforesaid khasra were government land. Original respondent No.1 late Triloki Nath Sahani claimed title over the aforesaid two khasra and asked the Land Acquisition Officer to refer the matter to the court under Section 18 of the Act. By order dated 14.8.74, the Land Acquisition Officer referred the matter to the court and by judgment dated 6.4.1999, the Court awarded compensation in favour of respondent No.2 which is challenged in this appeal filed by the State of Rajasthan. Appellant No.2 is the Land Acquisition officer of Nagar Vikas Yojna, Jaipur.

3. The claim of the applicant is that applicant had entered into two agreements with respondent No.1- Triloki Nath Sahani on 10.8.81 to purchase the aforesaid khasra. According to the applicant, possession of the portion of land which was subject matter of agreement was handed over to the applicant and applicant had paid entire consideration money to respondent No.1, therefore, applicant has got interest in the property which is subject matter in this appeal as such the applicant has a right to be heard in this appeal.

4. Prayer of the applicant has been opposed by the appellants as well as the respondents herein.

5. Contention of the appellant is that the aforesaid Khasras were acquired for public purposes, therefore, no one can challenge the acquisition. The real owner has only right to receive just and fair compensation. The dispute between the appellant and respondent is whether the acquired land is government land or land of respondent No.1.

6. Contention of the respondents is that an agreement to sale does not create any title in favour of the prospective purchaser, therefore, the prospective purchaser is not a necessary party. Moreover, the prospective purchaser (applicant) has already filed a suit for specific performance of contract which is still pending. After acquisition of the land, the only relief which can be granted to the applicant in the civil suit for specific performance of contract is refund of the consideration money on success of the suit.

7. Learned counsel for respondent No.1. next contends that a party who has not claimed reference under section 18 of the LAND ACQUISITION ACT cannot challenge the judgment of the court in this appeal. For this reason also, the prayer of the applicant is fit to be refused. Learned counsel for the respondent has relied on the following cases:

1. Ambey Devi v. State of Bihar and Ors. reported in 1996 (9) SCC 84

2. Dattaram Deu Desai and Ors. v. Nirakar Devasthan of Palolem, Goa and Ors.

3. Ukhra Forest v. State of West Bengal, AIR 1964 Calcutta 223

4. Mahadeo Bajirao Pati v. State of Maharashtra, (2005) 7 SCC 440

5. Sunil Kumar Jain v. Kishan and Ors., (1995)4 SCC 147

6. Gyan Chand v. Gopala and ors., 1995 (2) SCC 528

8. In Ambey Devi (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court stated the law in p