Subsequent purchasers cannot challenge notifications issued under the Land Acquisition Act as established in prior case law.

PRAYER:-Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for an issuance of Writ of Declaration, declaring that the Land Acquisition Proceedings initiated under the Land Acquisition Act 1894 in respect of the land measuring an extent of 0.24.0 Hectare(59 ½ cents) comprised in Survey No.670/1A of Hosur Village and Taluk, Krishnagiri District, covered by Notification issued under section 4(1) of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 vide G.O.Ms.No.849/Housing and Urban Development Department dated 21.05.1991 and Section 6 Declaration issued in G.O.Ms.537 dated 18.08.1992 are deemed to have lapsed in view of Section 24(2) of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Re-

settlement Act, 2013.

For Petitioner(s): Mr.K.Govi Ganesan For Respondent(s): Mr.T.K.Saravanan Additional Government Pleader For R1 & R3 Mr.S.Ramachandran Standing Counsel For R2

ORDER

This writ petition has been filed seeking to declare the Acquisition Proceedings initiated under the Land Acquisition Act 1894 in respect of the land measuring an extent of 0.24.0 Hectare(59 ½ cents) comprised in Survey No.670/1A of Hosur Village and Taluk, Krishnagiri District, covered by Notification issued under section 4(1) of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 vide G.O.Ms.No.849/Housing and Urban Development Department dated 21.05.1991 and Section 6 Declaration issued in G.O.Ms.537 dated 18.08.1992 are deemed to have lapsed in view of Section 24(2) of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Re-

settlement Act, 2013.

2.Learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents

1 and 3 would submit that the petitioner has challenged the notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The petitioner herein is the subsequent purchaser. The aforesaid notification has been issued in the name of his vendor. The right of the subsequent purchaser has already been decided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Shiv Kumar and Another vs. Union of India and Another reported in (2019) 10 supreme Court Cases 229 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the subsequent purchaser cannot challenge the notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.

3.As rightly contended by the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1 and 3, since the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the subsequent purchaser cannot challenge the notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 in the above mentioned Shiv Kumar case, the petitioner cannot challenge the impugned proceedings. Hence, no further orders can be passed in the present case.

4.In view of the above, this writ petition stands closed. No costs.