Smt. Savitridevi vs State of M.P. and others

C.K. Prasad, J.

The petitioner seeks quashing of notification dated 3.3.92 (Ann. P/4) issued under S. 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and notification dated 26.6.92 issued under S. 6 of the Act.

In view of the order, which I propose to pass, it is not necessary to give in detail the facts of the case. The petitioner purchased a part of the land acquired on 3.12.93 and 4.2.94 whereas notification under S. 4(1) of the Act was issued on 3.2.92 and under S. 6 of the Act on 26.6.92.

Various submissions have been advanced by Shri Maheshwari in support of this writ petition. However, Shri Chitale appearing on behalf of respondent no. 3, raises a preliminary objection regarding the locus standi of the petitioner to maintain the writ petition. In view of the fact that I am inclined to uphold the preliminary objection of respondent No. 3, I am not inclined to refer to other submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner. This Court does not decide academic questions.

The petitioner purchased the property after the notification under S. 4(1) of the Act was published. In view of the law laid down in the case of Mahavir and Another Vs. Rural Institute, Amravati and Another, as the sale by which the petitioner supportably derived title and interest was much after the notification under Ss. 4(1) & 6 of the Act were published, the sale is void. Relevant portion of the aforesaid decision reads as under:

Admittedly notification under S. 4(1) of the Land acquisition Act was published on 29.1.57 and thereafter the owner sold the properties to the petitioners on 11.6.57 and 22.8.58. Declaration under S. 6 was published on 14.8.58. Thus, it would be seen that the sales made after the publication of the notification under S. 4(1) are void sales and the State is not bound by such a sale effected by the owner.

A reference can also be made to the decision of Supreme Court in the case of U.P. Jal Nigam Lucknow v. M/s Kalra Properties (P) Ltd. (1996 Supreme 448) wherein it has been held as under:-

The notification under S. 4(1) and the declaration under S. 6, therefore, remain valid. There is no other provision under the Act to have the acquired land divested, unless, as stated earlier, notification under S. 48(1) was published and the possession are surrendered pursuant thereto. That apart, since M/S Kalra Properties, respondent had purchased the land after the notification under S. 4(1) was published, its sale is void against the State and it acquired no right, title or interest in the land. Consequently, it is settled law that it cannot challenge the validity of the notification or the regularity in taking possession of the land before publication of the declaration under S. 6 was published.

Thus, the sale in question does not confer any right to the petitioner. The petition, for relief of the nature sought for in the present petition, can be maintained only by a person who has existing and subsisting right. It is relevant here to state that predecessor in interest of the petitioner filed W.P. No. 1513/92 which was dismissed as not pressed by order dated 3.1.95. The application filed by the present petitioner for being added as co-petitioner in the said case was disposed of in the following manner:-

The applicant, Smt. Savitridevi is granted liberty to file fresh petition in case any proper ground is found to exist for that purpose.

It is worth mentioning here that a public interest litigation was also filed challenging the acquisition in question in W.P. 1255/94 and the same has been dismissed by a Division Bench of this Court by order dated 19.1.1995.

The present petitioner is not representing the interest of her predecessor as the said writ petition was dismissed as not pressed. As the sale in question does not create any interest in favour of the petitioner, being void, no ground exists for filing fresh petition. This Court was circumspect in granting liberty to the petitioner and liberty was subject to existence of any proper ground.

Shri Maheswari is right when he says that the sale even if held to be void, that will not disentitle the petitioner from claiming compensation in accordance with law.

In the result, I uphold the objection of the respondent and dismiss the writ petition with cost assessed at Rs. 2500/- to be paid by the petitioner to respondent No. 3.