By the Court.—Heard Sri Anil Sharma, Advocate assisted by Sri Ashok Tripathi, learned counsel for appellant and learned Standing Counsel as well as Sri Sanjay Kumar Om, Advocate for respondents.

2. This appeal under Section 54 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as “Act, 1894”) has arisen from judgment and award dated 16.12.2000 passed by Sri V.C. Gupta, IXth Additional District Judge, Agra in Land Acquisition Case No. 4 of 1988.

3. Appellant was non-suited by Reference Court only on the ground that he is a subsequent transferee by way of sale-deed dated 18.12.1987 which was executed after Special Land Acquisition Officer (hereinafter referred to as “SLAO”) made award dated 10.12.1987 determining compensation and, therefore, sale-deed is nothing but transfer of a right to sue and not property, barred by Section 6(e) of Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (hereinafter referred to as “Act, 1882”) hence reference at the instance of subsequent transferee for enhancement of compensation is not maintainable.

4. Point for determination which has arisen in this appeal is, “whether Reference Court was correct and justified in rejecting reference on the ground that applicant seeking reference, being a subsequent transferee, cannot maintain a reference for enhancement of compensation, as, the sale-deed is nothing but transfer of a right to sue and not property.”

5. The brief facts relevant for determination of this appeal are that for acquisition of 150-1-15 Bigha (85.47 acres) (413678.66 square yard) land in Village Basai, Tehsil and District Agra, notification under Section 4(1) of Act, 1894 was published on 7.5.1983 and declaration under Section 6 was published on 20.12.1985. Possession of land was taken on 15.10.1986. The land belong to Ashok Kumar and Rajenda Kumar at the time of issue of aforesaid notifications. However, vide sale-deed dated 18.12.1987, property rights in acquired land were transferred by erstwhile owner to appellant-Soran Singh.

6. SLAO made award on 10.12.1987 determining compensation at Rs. 25/- per square yard. Since sale-deed was executed on 18.12.1987 appellant thereafter moved application under Section 18 of Act, 1894 before Collector, Agra for making reference for determination of market value under Section 23 of Act, 1894 but this Reference has been rejected by Court below on the ground that appellant being subsequent purchaser cannot maintain reference for enhancement of compensation.

7. Sri Anil Sharma, learned counsel for appellant contended that a subsequent purchaser may not challenge acquisition but right to receive compensation including right to claim enhancement of compensation is a right to property and, therefore, reference on the part of subsequent purchaser to this effect was maintainable and Court below has erred in law in taking an otherwise view.

8. Learned Standing Counsel as well as Sri Sanjay Kumar Om, Advocate appearing for respondents, however, sought to support award for the reasons mentioned therein that appellant being a subsequent purchaser has no right to seek enhancement of compensation since what he purchased is mere right to sue and not for transfer of property.

9. In order to find out, what was transferred by erstwhile owner to appellant, we have gone through the copy of sale-deed and it would be appropriate to reproduce relevant extract thereof:

^^fofnr gks fd vkjkth [kkrk la[;k&2] [kljk ua0 15-85 jdcbZ 1 ch?kk 13 foLok] ckds xzke clbZ eq'rfdy rglhy o ftyk vkxjk ds dk'rdkj dkfct o n[khy Fks ge eqfdjku dh mijksDr vkjkth egdek vkxjk fodkl izkf/kdj.k vkxjk }kjk rktuxjh xzg LFkku ,oa lM+d ;kstuk ds vUrxZr vH;fFkZr dh tk pqdh gS ftl ij fd mDr foHkkx us dCtk Hkh izkIr dj fy;k gS rFkk ge yksxksa dks eqvkotk feyuk gS ftlds fd ge eqfdjku rugk ekfyd Lokeh dkfct o n[khy gS gekjs vykok nhxj gdnkj fgLlsnkj fdlh Hkh fdLe ds ugha gS tks fd eqvkotk gkfly djus esa fdlh Hkh fdLe dh ck/kk ;k :dkoV iSnk dj ldsA ge eqfdjku dks eqvkotk izkIr djus dh okdk tks gdwd gkfly gS og