Subsequent land purchasers cannot challenge government acquisition notifications and transfers made without proper permissions are considered void.

1. Leave granted in Special Leave Petition Nos.11233-11234 of 2001.

2. All these appeals involving identical issues were heard together and are being disposed of by this common Judgment and order.

3. The prime issue that falls for our consideration in these appeals is whether in view of the provisions of Delhi Lands (Restrictions and Transfer) Act, 1972 (for short "Delhi Lands Act"), read with the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short "Land Acquisition Act") transfer of land made by the original owner by registering a sale deed on the basis of which mutation was also granted would and could be accepted as legal and valid transfer despite the fact that such land was acquired by the State Government under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act for the public purpose.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the parties advanced elaborate and in depth arguments on the aforesaid issue. But before we deal with and discuss the same, it would be necessary for us to mention a few facts leading to filing of the present appeals.

5. On 24.10.1961, a Notification was issued under S.4 of the Land Acquisition Act under the orders of the Lieutenant Governor of Delhi intending acquisition of land for the public purpose, namely for the planned development of Delhi. Under the aforesaid Notification the land allegedly belonging to the predecessors in interest of the present appellants which constitute the subject matter of the present appeals was also sought to be acquired. Declaration under S.6 of the Land Acquisition Act through a Notification dated 4.1.1969 was also issued stating that the said land is required for the public purpose, namely, for the planned development of Delhi. In the year 1980, two of the appellants viz. Mrs. Meera Sahni and Mrs. Padma Mahant purchased the said acquired land from one Shri Chand which was transferred through Mr. Nand Kishore, power of attorney holder. Subsequently, on 26.4.1983 Notification under S.9 of the Land Acquisition Act was issued. It is pertinent to mention here that no Notification under S.48 of the Land Acquisition Act, which empowers the government to withdraw from acquisition of any land on which possession has not been taken, was issued in respect of land in question.

6. The legality of the aforesaid Notifications and declarations, which were issued under S.4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act and subsequent Notification under S.9, were challenged by various land holders whose lands were proposed to be acquired by the aforesaid notifications. The appellants/predecessor in interest of the appellants also filed similar writ petitions in the High Court of Delhi challenging the legality and validity of the notification and declaration under which their land was proposed to be acquired. Smt. Meera Sahni filed a Civil Writ Petition No.1003 of 1983, Smt. Padma Mahant filed Civil Writ Petition No.1002 of 1983 and whereas Writ Petition No.1086 of 1983 was filed by Shri Khyali Ram, the predecessor in interest of other three appellants, namely, (1) Sapphire Sales (P) Ltd. (2) Zircon Trading (P) Ltd. and (3) Eternal Agencies Pvt. Ltd. The said writ petitions were finally heard along with few other letters patent appeals, and all the writ petitions and the letters patent appeals were dismissed. The said decision was rendered By the Delhi High Court on 01.12.1995 under the title Roshanara Begum v. Union of India reported in 1996 (61) DLT 206. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and order the writ petitioners preferred appeals in this Court. Some of the cases which were pending in the High Court and pertained to the identical issue were also transferred to this Court. A