Tainted sale transactions post the initiation of acquisition proceedings result in the divestment of the landowners' right, title, and interest in the acquired lands, leading to a lack of locus standi to challenge the land acquisition.

SURESHWAR THAKUR, J.

1. The present petitioners claim relief, that the notification (Annexure P-1), and, the declaration (Annexure P-2), as became respectively issued under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act of 1894’), respectively on 20.01.2003 and on 16.01.2004, be thus quashed and set aside.

2. The above relief is banked upon Section 24(2) of The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act of 2013’), inasmuch as, the acquisition authority concerned neither assuming physical possession of the acquired lands, nor the determined compensation amount vis-a-vis the landowners concerned, through an award made on 14.01.2006, becoming released to the landlooser(s) concerned.

3. Before proceeding to delve into, and, make an adjudication upon the validity of the above raised writ claim(s), the conspicuous factum of the lack of locus standi of the petitioners to maintain the instant writ petition before this Court, thus makes its imminent surgings.

4. The present petitioners would have an able locus standi to maintain the present writ petition, only when the petitioners were the lawful landowners of the acquired lands. If the petitioners were not the lawful landowners of the acquired lands, thereby the petitioners would not have a befitting locus standi to either maintain the instant writ petition, nor they would be entitled to constrain this Court to either delve into the merits of the writ claim(s), or, to make an effective adjudication thereons.

5. In determining the above factum of a valid locus standi rather inhering in the present petitioners, it is deemed necessary to allude to the trite factum qua acquisition of title vis-a-vis the acquired lands, thus by the present petitioners. The sale deeds (Annexure P-7), in respect of the acquired lands, became executed on 02.05.2005, on 12.08.2005, and, on 28.02.2006. Therefore, the date(s) of execution of sale deeds (supra), thus was post the launching of acquisition proceedings vis-a-vis the acquired lands.

6. The legal import of the above, is that, since on launching of the acquisition proceedings, there was a complete vestment of right, title and interest in the acquiring authority concerned over the acquired lands, and, a concomitant divestment of right, title and interest of the landlooser(s) concerned over the acquired lands, thereby the latter became incapacitated to thus execute a valid deed of conveyance in respect of the acquired lands vis-a-vis the petitioners.

7. Cumulatively hence the sale deeds (supra) are tainted sale transactions. If so, when therethroughs, no valid right, title and interest becomes invested in the present petitioners, resultantly the present petitioners does not have the befitting locus standi to maintain the instant writ petition.

8. Therefore, this Court finds no merit in the writ petition and is constrained to dismiss it, on the ground, that the petitioners have no locus standi to maintain the instant writ petition, vis-a-vis the same obviously being a misconstituted recourse. Accordingly, the instant writ petition is dismissed with costs of Rs.50,000/- to be forthwith deposited in the Punjab and Haryana High Court Bar Clerks’ Association, Chandigarh.

9. All pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of accordingly.

Petition dismissed.