Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2022 Supreme(Mad) 2019

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
MUNISHWAR NATH BHANDARI, N. MALA, JJ.
B. Nagaraj - Appellant
Versus
The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Secretary, Industries Department, Chennai & Others - Respondent
W.A. Nos. 1204, 1209, 1210, 1214, 1216, 1217, 1218 and 1239 of 2022 & C.M.P. Nos. 7614, 7697, 7704, 7717, 7719, 7739, 7741, 7750 to 7753, 7755, 7756, 7837 & 7841 of 2022
Decided On : 09-06-2022

Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant:G. Ethirajulu, Advocate. For the Respondents:R1 to R4, P. Muthukumar, State Govt. Pleader assisted by Alagu Gowtham, Govt. Advocate.

A purchaser of the land after the issuance of Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 has no right to challenge the acquisition proceedings and can only claim compensation. Any purchase after the Notification under Section 4(1) of the Act of 1894 is termed to be 'void ab-initio' and therefore, no Declaration can be sought regarding the lapse of the acquisition under the Act of 1894 or the Act of 2013.

Headnote:
Land Acquisition - Challenge to acquisition under Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition and Rehabilitation and Re-settlement Act, 2013 - Section 4(1), Section 6, Section 24(2) - The court dismissed the Writ Petitions challenging the acquisition of land under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition and Rehabilitation and Re-settlement Act, 2013. The main ground to challenge the acquisition was the delay in passing the Award, and the locus of the writ petitioners to challenge the acquisition proceedings and to seek its lapse, as they had purchased the land much subsequent to the issuance of the Notification under Section 4(1) of the Act of 1894. The court referred to various judgments of the Supreme Court to establish that a purchaser of the land after the issuance of Notification under Section 4 of the Act of 1894 has no right to challenge the acquisition proceedings and can only claim compensation. The court also highlighted that any purchase after the Notification under Section 4(1) of the Act of 1894 is termed to be 'void ab-initio' and therefore, no Declaration can be sought regarding the lapse of the acquisition under the Act of 1894 or the Act of 2013.
Fact of the Case:

The Writ Petitions challenged the acquisition of land under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition and Rehabilitation and Re-settlement Act, 2013. The main ground for challenge was the delay in passing the Award and the locus of the writ petitioners to challenge the acquisition proceedings as they had purchased the land much subsequent to the issuance of the Notification under Section 4(1) of the Act of 1894.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that the writ petitioners, who purchased the land after the issuance of the Notification under Section 4(1) of the Act of 1894, had no right to challenge the acquisition proceedings and could only claim compensation. The court also noted that any purchase after the Notification under Section 4(1) of the Act of 1894 is termed to be 'void ab-initio' and therefore, no Declaration can be sought regarding the lapse of the acquisition under the Act of 1894 or the Act of 2013. The delay in challenging the acquisition proceedings after almost 20 years of the Award was also considered, and the court dismissed the Writ Appeals.
Issues: The issues involved the challenge to the acquisition of land under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition and Rehabilitation and Re-settlement Act, 2013, based on the delay in passing the Award and the locus of the writ petitioners to challenge the acquisition proceedings as subsequent purchasers.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on various judgments of the Supreme Court to establish that a purchaser of the land after the issuance of Notification under Section 4 of the Act of 1894 has no right to challenge the acquisition proceedings and can only claim compensation. The court also highlighted that any purchase after the Notification under Section 4(1) of the Act of 1894 is termed to be 'void ab-initio' and therefore, no Declaration can be sought regarding the lapse of the acquisition under the Act of 1894 or the Act of 2013.
Final Decision: The Writ Appeals were dismissed by the court, and there was no order as to costs. The court also closed the C.M.Ps.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Writ Appeal No.1204 of 2022 filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent against the order dated 13.12.2021 passed by the learned Single Judge, in W.P.No.28331 of 2014 on the file of this Court.)

Common Judgment:

Munishwar Nath Bhandari, CJ.

1. The Writ Appeals have been preferred to challenge the judgment dated 13.12.2021, by which a batch of Writ Petitions to challenge the acquisition of the land under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and even in reference to Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition and Rehabilitation and Re-settlement Act, 2013 (Act 30 of 2013), was dismissed.

2. The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the Notification under Section 4(1) of the Act of 1894 was issued on 04.12.1990 and the Declaration under Section of the Act of 1894 was issued on 27.07.1992, followed by the Award, dated 26.08.1994. The said Award lapsed as per the provisions of the Act of 1894 and Section 24(2) of the Act of 2013. However, it is in fact admitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that the Writ Petitioners purchased the lands after entering into the agreement in the year 2010, i.e., much subsequent to the Notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Act of 1894. The learned Single Judge, referring to the detailed facts of the case, dismissed the Writ Petitions after referring to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Shiv Kumar Vs. Union of India (reported in 2019 (10) SCC 229). It is also after referring to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Indore Development Authority Vs. Manoharlal (reported in 2020 (8) SCC 129).

3. The main ground to challenge the acquisition is the delay in passing the Award, and therefore, the acquisition proceedings would lapse. According to the learned counsel for the appellants, the Award could not have been passed beyond the period of two years from the date of Declaration under Section 6 of the Act of 1894, whereas in the case on hand, the Declaration under Section 6 of the Act of 1894 was issued on 27.07.1992, whereas the Award was passed on 26.08.1994, and therefore, the acquisition proceedings should have lapsed.

4. Before addressing the issue in regard to the lapse, the question is about the locus of the writ petitioners to challenge the acquisition proceedings and to seek its lapse, because, the writ petitioners had purchased the land much subsequent to the issuance of the Notification under Section 4(1) of the Act of 1894.

5. The Apex Court, while dealing with the issue in the case of Shiv Kumar (supra), has held that the purchaser of the land, after issuance of Notification under Section 4 of the Act of 1894, has no right to challenge the acquisition proceedings and he can, at the best, claim compensation. It is for the aforesaid, even the issue in reference to Section 24 of the Act of 2013, was also dealt with, because, any purchase, after the Notification under Section 4(1) of the Act of 1894, is termed to be "void ab-initio" and therefore, no Declaration can be sought regarding the lapse of the acquisition under the Act of 1894 or the Act of 2013. The relevant paragraphs of the judgment are quoted hereunder for ready reference:

"7.7. In M.Venkatesh Vs. BDA (2015 (17) SCC 1 : 2017 (5) SCC (Civ) 387), a three-Judge Bench has opined: (SCC pp.8-9, para 16):

"16. That brings us to the question of whether Prabhaudas Patel and other respondents in SLP (C) No.12016 of 2013 were entitled to any relief from the Court. These respondents claim to have purchased the suit property in terms of a sale deed dated 22.08.1990 i.e. long after the issuance of the preliminary notification published in July 1984. The legal position about the validity of any such sale, post-issuance of preliminary notification, is fairly well settled by a long line of the decisions of this Court. The sale in such cases is void and non est in the eye of the law giving to the vendee the limited right to claim compensation and no mo

Click Here to Read the rest of this document