Post-acquisition, landowners cannot enter into valid agreements regarding the acquired land, as the public interest served by the acquisition prevails over private benefits, rendering such agreements void.

JUDGMENT

Sureshwar Thakur, J.

Since all the above mentioned writ petitions arise from a common notification of acquisition besides when common questions of law and facts are involved thereins, therefore, all the above mentioned writ petitions are taken up together for disposal.

2. Petitioner No.2 in CWP-17464-2007 on the strength of a collaboration agreement dated 2.4.2004 (admittedly entered after issuance of a declaration under Section 6 of the LAND ACQUISITION ACT , 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1894'), has through filing the instant writ petition(s), thus thrown a challenge, to the land acquisition proceedings which were successfully and legally terminated in the year 2006. It is not in dispute that petitioner No.2 had entered into a collaboration agreement with petitioner No.1, but yet post the issuance of a declaration under Section 6 of the Act of 1894.

3. The core issue which arises for determination, before this Court, is whether the collaboration agreement executed inter-se the land losers, and, the collaborator(s) concerned, rather begets the stain of illegality, thus stemming from the factum of its becoming drawn post the issuance of notification (Supra):-

(i) The other question which arises for determination is whether the collaborator(s) concerned, who only at the stage (Supra) emerged into the scenario, does thereby become entitled to the benefit of release of the acquired land, especially when the claim for release is planked, but only on the premise of the apposite collaboration agreement, thus whether thereby the said endeavor would be frustrating the public purpose besides would be promoting the makings of ill-profits by the builder or by the collaborator(s) concerned;

(ii) That if the said collaboration agreement is alike the transfer of rights in the acquired land, vis-a-vis, the collaborator(s) concerned. Moreover, when it is entered into but post the issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act of 1894, whether thereby when at the stage (Supra), any transfer of title by the land losers concerned, to the collaborator concerned, is but barred or when thereafters, the claim for releases of the acquired land, as made, imperatively post the issuance of a notification under Section 4 of the Act of 1894, whether thereby, the said claim, can be well laid either by the land losers or by the collaborator concerned.

4. For making determinations, upon, the question of law (Supra), it is deemed imperative, to allude to the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Uddar Gagan Properties Ltd. v. Sant Singh & Ors., to which Civil Appeal No. 5072 of 2016 (Arising out of SLP(Civil)5455 of 2014), becomes assigned. Before proceeding to extract the relevant paragraph, as occur, thereins, it is deemed imperative to delineate the facts as occur thereins.

(i) The imperative fact which emerged, thereins is that, on 11.4.2002, 850.88 acres of land was proposed to be acquired for residential/commercial Sector 27-28, Rohtak, Haryana. The said proposal was carried in the notification of even date becoming issued under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1894'). The said notification became succeeded by a declaration made on 8.4.2003 under Section 6 of the Act of 1894 leading to an awa