Allahabad High Court
Dr. Veer Brejendra Pratap vs State Of U.P.Thr.Secy.Urban ... on 9 July, 2019
Bench: Ajai Lamba, Narendra Kumar Johari
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 2
Case :- MISC. BENCH No. - 10238 of 2012
Petitioner :- Dr. Veer Brejendra Pratap
Respondent :- State Of U.P.Thr.Secy.Urban Development,Civil Sectt.& Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Vinay Misra
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Gaurav Mehrotra,Mukund Tewari
Hon'ble Ajai Lamba,J.
Hon'ble Narendra Kumar Johari,J.
(ORAL)
1. The petition seeks issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing order dated 19.5.2012 passed by respondent no.4 (Secretary, Lucknow Development Authority Lucknow) vide which claim of the petitioner has been rejected. The order has been appended as Annexure-1.
2. Contention of learned counsel for the petitioner, in brief is that the petitioner purchased land from one Prahlad Kumar son of Late Suraj Bhan vide sale deed on 11.10.2002 placed on record as Annexure-3. Land of the petitioner was acquired. There was a house existing on the land.
It has been pleaded that land along with house of one Hundi Singh was also acquired. While certain benefits were given to Hundi Singh, the petitioner has not been treated equally.
3. Learned counsel for the respondents Lucknow Development Authority Shri Mukund Tewari has contended that the claim of the petitioner is in regard to Khasra No.1359. It has been vehemently contended that the said land was acquired vide notification issued under Section 4 of Land Acquisition Act 1894 published on 19.1.1983. Notification under Section 6 was published on 28.1.1983. Possession of the acquired land was taken by the respondents on 20.4.1983. Award was pronounced on 23.9.1986.
It is the contention of learned counsel for the respondents that the petitioner having purchased the land on 11.10.2002 would have no right to claim any benefit under the acquisition proceedings. Rather the vendors had no right to sell the land to the petitioner because they had no right or title that could be conveyed. In this regard learned counsel for the respondents has relied on (1997) 1 SCC 35, Secretary, Jaipur Development Authority, Jaipur vs. Daulat Mal Jain and others (para 8).
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through relevant documents towards which our attention has been drawn.
5. Perusal of impugned order Annexure-1 indicates that apparently the petitioner earlier preferred writ petition No.10841 (MB) of 2011. The said petition was disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to represent his cause afresh within ten days before the competent authority. The competent authority was directed to look into the matter and take a decision by passing speaking and reasoned order.
The order under challenge has been passed in consequence and in deference to decision rendered in Writ Petition No.10841 (MB) of 2011 dated 3.11.2011.
6. Perusal of the impugned decision indicates that the factum of acquisition of land comprised in Khasra No.1359 in village Ujeriyaon, Pargana Tehsil District Lucknow has been noticed. The order further deals with the right of the petitioner to claim parity with Hundi Singh. The order also notices that petitioner purchased the land from Prahlad Singh.
7. In view of the contention made by learned counsel for the respondents we have specifically asked learned counsel for the petitioner to demonstrate from any document that the acquisition proceeding were carried after purchase of land by the petitioner.
8. Learned counsel has been unable to refer to any document which would demonstrate that land belonging to the petitioner had been acquired and therefore is entitled to the relief, as claimed. Per contra reference to para 8 of judgment rendered Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Daulat Mal Jain's case makes it evident that the petitioner would have no right to claim benefit of the acquisition proceedings, because he purchased the acquired land, subsequent to the acquisition proceedings.
9. Para 8 (supra) reads as under:-
?8. The diverse contentions give rise to the first question: whether the respondents have a right to allotment of the lands? It is an admitted position that they purchased the lands from Chhote Lal, the erstwhile owner, pursuant to the sale deeds executed by him in 1970 or an agreement of sale etc. Their source of title, therefore, is Chhote Lal, the erstwhile owner. The sales obviously are void since Chhote Lal had no right, title and interest in the land acquired pursuant to notification under Section 4(1) issued on 29-6-1960 and possession taken under Section 16 of the Central Act and equivalent to Section 16 of the State Act. The pre-existing right, title and interest had by Chhote Lal stood ceased and the same were vested in the appellant free from all encumbrances. The nomenclature of sub-awardees or nominees does not get elevated above the source and they had no right, title or interest under void sale except, if at all, only to claim compensation under Section 23(1) of the Act. In Gian Chand v. Gopala (1995) 2 SCC 528 this Court had held that after the notification under Section 4(1) is published, any encumbrance created by the owner of the land does not bind the Government. The agreement of sale, if any, was frustrated by the publication of the notification under Section 4(1) and the declaration under Section 6. In Yadu Nandan Garg v. State of Rajasthan (1996) 1 SCC 334 and a catena of other decisions, this Court has held that the purchase after notification under Section 4(1) published in the Gazette was not lawful which did not clothe the sale with any colour of title as against the State. All encumbrances stand extinguished by operation of Section 16 of the Act. Therefore, the purchaser gets no title to the acquired land. The sale (being opposed to the public policy) was void under Section 23 of the Contract Act, 1872. Consequentially, the respondents acquired no right, title or interest either under the sale deeds or agreement entered into by them with Chhote Lal, the erstwhile owner.?
10. From the judgment, relevant portion whereof has been extracted above, it has become evident that pre-existing right, title and interest vested in the owner of the land stood ceased and the same were vested in the State, after acquisition proceedings.
11. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case and the law, the petitioner having purchased the land subsequent to the acquisition proceedings, would have no right to claim any benefit flowing from the acquisition proceedings.
12. The petition is accordingly dismissed.
Order Date :- 9.7.2019
Madhu
