T. Raju and R. Lakshmi vs The Government of Tamilnadu and The Special Tahsildar (Land Acquisition) Madurai South Neighbourhood Scheme Unit-I

P.D. Dinakaran, J.—The petitioners seek a writ of Certiorari calling for the records relating to the land acquisition proceedings in G.O.Ms.

No. 537, Housing and Urban Development Department dated 5.4.1991, the notification issued u/s 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 (Central

Act 1/1894) and the Declaration in G.O.Ms. No. 270, Housing and Urban Development Department dated 26.5.1992 issued u/s 6 of the Land

Acquisition Act 1894 (Central Act 1/1984) and quash the same insofar as it relates to their property of an extent of 10 cents 317 sq.ft. in Plot

Nos. 2, 3 and 4 in S. No. 77/2A, Thoppur Village, Madurai South Taluk, Madurai District.

According to the petitioners, they have purchased the land of an extent of 10 cents 317 sq.ft. in Plot Nos. 2, 3 and 4 in S. No. 77/2A, Thoppur

Village, Madurai South Taluk, Madurai District in the year 1989, 1984 and 1985 respectively. However, the notification u/s 4(1) of the Land

Acquisition Act (for brevity the ""Act"") in G.O.Ms. No. 537, Housing and Urban Development Department dated 5.4.1991 and declaration issued

u/s 6 of the Act in G.O.Ms. No. 270, Housing and Urban Development Department dated 26.5.1992 were neither served on them nor on their

vendor. Moreover, declaration u/s 6 of the Act was issued after one year from the date of publication of notification u/s 4(1) of the Act and

therefore, the same is illegal. Further, they have not been served with a copy of the award till date. Hence, the above writ petition.

The only contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the petitioners, who are admittedly subsequent purchasers, have not

been served with any notice u/s 4(1) of the Act or for enquiry u/s 5-A of the Act or before passing declaration u/s 6 of the Act and therefore, the

impugned acquisition proceedings is illegal.

In U.P. Jal Nigam, Lucknow through its Chairman and another Vs. M/s. Kalra Properties (P) Ltd. Lucknow and others, , the Apex Court has

held that after the notification u/s 4(1) is published in the Gazette, any encumbrance created by the owner does not bind the Government and the

purchaser does not acquire any title to the property and the sale is void against the State and the purchaser acquired no right, title or interest in the

land and consequently, the subsequent purchaser cannot challenge the validity of the notification or the regularity in taking possession of the land

before publication of the declaration u/s 6 of the Act.

In view of the above settled law that the subsequent purchaser has no right to challenge the acquisition proceedings, the petitioners have no

locus stand to challenge the acquisition proceedings, except to establish their right in the award proceedings. Since it is reported by the learned

Additional Government Pleader that the vendor has already received the award, the petitioners are at liberty to work their rights against the vendor

in appropriate civil proceedings.

The writ petition is dismissed. No costs.