RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
M.N. Bhandari, J.
Firm Rajasthan Glass House —Petitioner
versus
State of Rajasthan through Secretary —Petitioner
S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.5637 of 2005
Decided on 12.4.2017

IMPORTANT POINTS
1. After issuance of the Notification under Section 4(1), any encumbrance created does not pass title of the land. Section 4 of the Act of 1976 would thus apply on issuance of the Notification under Section 4 of the Act of 1894.
2. Deemed lapse under Section 24(2) cannot be sought by a stranger or by a person who is not owning the land.

Headnote:Land Acquisition Act, 1894—Sections 4 and 6—Rajasthan Lands (Restrictions on Transfer) Act, 1976—Section 4—Petitioners claimed to have purchases land from owner after Land Acquisition notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued in July, 1995 and petitioner was continuing in possession of land despite subsequent notification under Section 6 of the Act and award of compensation assessed in favour of petitioner—Writ petition to quash acquisition proceedings Section 4 of the Act of 1976 provided for restriction on transfer of lands in relation to which acquisition proceedings were initiated—Section 4 of the Act of 1976 applied to a land even where notification under Section 4 of Land Acquisition Act was issued—Purchase of land subsequent to Notification under Section 4 of Act of 1894 was void—Writ petition was not maintainable on basis of such void transaction—Reference of name of petitioner in the award or calling for subsequent proceedings for regularisation of land also could not make void transaction to be valid—Petitioner being not lawful owner could not ask for de-acquisition of land on issue of discrimination.

       Held: The issue is as to whether Section 4 would apply after declaration under Section 6 of the Act of 1894 or with initiation of the proceedings. From bare reading of the provision shows its application to a land which is proposed for acquisition in connection with the scheme and in relation to it, with a declaration under Section 6. It does not show that Section 4 of the Act of 1976 would apply on declaration under Section 6 of the Act of 1894 or under the corresponding provisions.

       In the instant case, purchase of land is subsequent to proposed acquisition as Notification under Section 4 of the Act of 1894 was issued on 4th July, 1995, whereas, sale deed in favour of the petitioner was executed on 28th August, 1995. In the light of the aforesaid, I am unable to agree with the argument of the learned counsel for petitioner regarding in application of Section 4 of the Act of 1976.

       The judgment of the Apex Court in the case of U.P. Jal Nigam v. Kalra Properties (P) Ltd., reported in (1996) 3 SCC 124 gives answer to the question. It is held that after issuance of the Notification under Section 4(1), any encumbrance created does not pass title of the land. Section 4 of the Act of 1976 would thus apply on issuance of the Notification under Section 4 of the Act of 1894.

       The question now remains as to whether a writ petition can be filed based on void transaction. The aforesaid issue to be considered in the light of the subsequent award where reference of petitioner’s name exists with a direction for payment of compensation. The reference of name of the petitioner in the award or calling for subsequent proceedings for regularization of land cannot make void transaction to be valid. The distinction exists between void and voidable transaction. Accordingly, even if petitioner’s name appears in the award in reference to his claim on a notice under Section 9 or otherwise, it cannot nullify the effect of Section 4 of the Act of 1976. The petitioner cannot challenge acquisition of land as has been held by the Apex Court in the case of Meera Sahni (supra). See para 21.

       The next question is in regard to de-acquisition of the land. The neighbouring land has been de-acquired thus issue of discrimination has been raised. The prayer aforesaid can be raised by a lawful owner and not by a person having no legal right in the land in question. In view of above, I do not find any ground to accept the prayer for de-acquisition of the land. (Paras 16, 17, 19 to 21)

       (ii) Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013—Section 24(2)—Deemed lapse of acquisition—It cannot be sought by a stranger on by a person who is not owning the land.

       Held: The issue now remains in reference to Section 24(2) of the Act of 2013. The question is as to who can claim deemed lapse. Can it be by a stranger or a person having no title in the land. The obvious answer would be that deemed lapse under Section 24(2) cannot be sought by a stranger or by a person who is not owning the land. If deemed lapse has to be sought, it can be by the khatedar or a title holder of land if he is in possession of the land or compensation has not been paid but not by a person having void transaction. The challenge to the acquisition of land in the hands of purchaser after a Notification under Section 4 of the Act of 1894 has not been accepted by the Apex Court in the case of Meera Sahni (supra). See Para 21 of the said judgment. (Para 24)

       Result: Petition dismissed.