The main legal point established in the judgment is that subsequent purchasers of acquired land have the right to claim compensation, and the sale-deeds do not create encumbrances on the acquired land.

Sudhir Agarwal and Rakesh Srivastava, JJ. –

Heard Shri P.C. Jain, learned counsel for appellant. None appeared on behalf of respondent although this appeal has been called in revised. Hence, we proceed to decide appeal ex parte.

2. This appeal under Section 54 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as "Act 1894") has arisen from award/judgment dated 30.07.2002 passed by Sri Musharraf Husain, 13th Additional District Judge, Agra, adjudicating Land Acquisition Reference (hereinafter referred to as "LAR") No.203 of 1993, determining market value of acquired land at the rate of Rs. 1,56,000/- per bigha (Rs.51.57 per square yard). Court below has also directed that claimant-respondents shall be entitled for payment of solatium at the rate of 30% of market value, 12% additional compensation and interest for various periods, as per provisions of Act, 1894.

3. At the instance of Jal Sansthan, Agra (hereinafter referred to as "appellant"), proceedings for acquisition of 80 bighas, 4 biswa and 15 biswansi land in Village Baipur Muslim, Tehsil and District-Agra for construction of a new Water Works were initiated by State Government by publishing a notification under Section 4 (1) of Act, 1894 on 24.10.1988. Notification under Section 6 (1) was published on 24.6.1989. Possession of acquired land was taken on 16.08.1990. Special Land Acquisition Officer (hereinafter referred to as "SLAO") made award on 9.8.1991 determining market value of acquired land at the rate of Rs. 36666.67 per bigha (i.e. Rs. 12.12 per square yard), besides 30% solatium, 12% additional compensation and interest at the rate of 9% from the date of compensation till one year, thereafter, at the rate of 15% till actual payment is made.

4. In present case, claimant-respondents have purchased some part of acquired land, disputed in present appeal, vide sale-deed dated 7.1.1991 from erstwhile owners of Shri Prem Prakash, Sri Jai Prakash and Sri Ravindra Kumar. It is admitted by parties that land in Khasra Nos.1079, 1080, 1081, 1092, 1098, 1099, 1100, 1104 and 1109 was earlier owned by Shri Prem Prakash, Sri Jai Prakash and Sri Ravindra Kumar, who had executed a sale-deed in favour of Sri Krishna Kumari, Sri Maheshchand, Sri Pradeep Gupta and Shri Mahidhar. Subsequently, Sri Maheshchand Gupta transferred by sale, half of his share in land in question to Smt. Shashiprabha Sharma vide sale-deed dated 19.08.1992. Earlier sale-deed dated 07.01.1991 was executed before award dated 9.8.1991 and subsequent sale-deed dated 19.08.1992 was executed after the said award.

5. Claimants-respondents1, 2, 3 and 5 made application dated 24.11.1993 before Collector for making reference under Section 18 of Act 1894 to District Judge, Agra for determination of market value under Section 23 of Act, 1894. Now it has been adjudicated by Additional District Judge, Court No.13, Agra vide award/judgment dated 30.07.2002, impugned in this appeal.

6. Referring to fact that respondents were not owners of property when it was acquired but have subsequently purchased the same when process of determination of compensation was pending before Collector, it is contended that any sale-deed executed after possession of land is taken by Government, would be void and it shall not result in conferring title upon purchaser for the reason that once acquisition proceedings have commenced and possession is taken by Government, acquired land vests with the Government, free from all encumbrances, and Government becomes owner. The only right left with land owner whose land has been acquired is to receive compensation. Therefore, sale-deed executed in respect of land acquired by Government and possession taken, will not be a valid transaction. It is contended that receiving of compensation is nothing but a "right to sue" and by execution of sale-deed by erstwhile owners, no transfer could have been done, as it is barred by section 6 (e) of Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (hereinafter referred to as "Act