JUDGMENT :

Rajesh Bindal, CJ.

The matter has been placed before this Bench on a reference made by a Division Bench of this Court vide order dated January 22, 2020, seeking opinion on the following questions :

''(i) Whether a subsequent purchaser of the land acquired under the National Highways Act, 1956, after publication of declaration under Section 3D(1), is not entitled to receive compensation on the strength of his vendor's title in view of Section 3D(2)?

(ii) Which of the judgments (i) Surendra Nath Singh Yadav (supra) or (ii) Vipin Kumar Agarwal, Asha Devi and Smt. Gyanti Singh, lay down the law correctly?''

2. For the purposes of clarity, Question Nos. (i) Reframed as 1A and 1B and (ii) referred to above, are reframed as follows:

''1A. Whether the purchaser of the land, after publication of the declaration under Section 3-D(1) of the National Highways Act, 1956 is entitled to receive compensation on strength of his vendor's title?

1B. Whether the purchaser of the land, after determination of amount of compensation under Section 3-G of the National Highways Act, 1956 is entitled to receive compensation on strength of his vendor's title from competent authority?

II. Which of the judgments (i) Surendra Nath Singh Yadav v. Union of India and others, 2018(2) ADJ 760(DB) or (ii) Vipin Agarwal v. Union of India and others, Writ-C No. 10958 of 2018 (DB), dated 27.3.2018, Asha Devi v. National Highway Authority of India and others, Writ-C No. 9874 of 2018 (DB), dated 16.3.2018 and Smt. Gyanti Singh v. State of U.P. and others, Writ-C No. 12158 of 2018 (DB), dated 3.4.2018, lay down the law correctly?''

3. Brief facts, as emerge from the order of reference, are that one Ram Dulari, widow of late Pataru, executed a sale-deed on January 21, 2016 in favour of the petitioner for an area of 0.430 hectare of Gata No. 535 situated in Mauja Pirthipur, Pargana Pachotar, District Ghazipur. After the name of the petitioner was entered in the revenue record, she came to know that the land in question had already been acquired by the National Highway Authority for which notification under Section 3-A of the National Highways Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the 1956 Act') was issued on December 1, 2014. It was followed by a notification issued under Section 3-D of the 1956 Act on November 27, 2015. The award was also announced on December 25, 2015. The land was purchased by the petitioner vide sale-deed dated January 21, 2016, after the issuance of notification under Section 3-D of the 1956 Act and passing of the award by the competent authority, on December 25, 2015.

4. The amount of compensation having not been paid to the petitioner, she raised an issue. The stand of the respondents was that on issuance of the notification under Section 3-D of the 1956 Act, the land having been vested in the Central Government, any sale transaction thereafter is void and will not confer any right on the vendee.

5. The vendor of the petitioner was also impleaded as respondent No. 7 in the writ petition, who died during pendency thereof and her legal representative has been substituted thereafter.

6. The argument raised by learned counsel for the petitioner is that even if the sale-deed executed by the vendor of the petitioner is held to be void but still she has a right to receive compensation on the strength of the vendor's title, in whose name the land was admittedly recorded before issuance of notification under Section 3-D of the 1956 Act. The position is anomalous as Section 3-D of the 1956 Act provides that on publication of notification thereunder, the land shall vest in the Central Government free from all encumbrances, without even assessment or payment of compensation. In the case in hand, the vendor of the petitioner does not have any objection, in case the amount of compensation is paid to the petitioner. In the circumstances, the Government should not have any objection. He has referred to a Division Bench judgment of this Court in Surendra Nath Sin