Search

LOCUS STANDI OF A PERSON WHO PURCHASES THE LAND SUBSEQUENT TO A NOTIFICATION BEING ISSUED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE ACT

In Pandit Leela Ram v. Union of India AIR 1975 SC 2112, Court held that, any one who deals with the land subsequent to a Section 4 notification being issued, does so, at his own peril.
In Sneh Prabha v. State of Uttar Pradesh AIR 1996 SC 540, Court held that a Section 4 notification gives a notice to the public at large that the land in respect to which it has been issued, is needed for a public purpose, and it further points out that there will be "an impediment to any one to encumber the land acquired thereunder." The alienation thereafter does not bind the State or the beneficiary under the acquisition. The purchaser is entitled only to receive compensation.

Similarly, in U.P. Jal Nigam v. Kalra Properties Pvt. Ltd. AIR 1996 SC 1170, Court held that, purchase of land after publication of a Section 4 notification in relation to such land, is void against the State and at the most, the purchaser may be a person-interested in compensation, since he steps into the shoes of the erstwhile owner and may therefore, merely claim compensation.
In Ajay Kishan Singhal v. Union of India AIR 1996 SC 2677; Mahavir and Anr. v. Rural Institute, Amravati and Anr. (1995) 5 SCC 335; Gian Chand v. Gopala and Ors. (1995) 2 SCC 528; and Meera Sahni v. Lieutenant Governor of Delhi and Ors. (2008) 9 SCC 177, Court categorically held that, a person who purchases land after the publication of a Section 4 notification with respect to it, is not entitled to challenge the proceedings for the reason, that his title is void and he can at best claim compensation on the basis of vendor's title. In view of this, the sale of land after issuance of a Section 4 notification is void and the purchaser cannot challenge the acquisition proceedings.

No comments:

CASE LAW ON LAND LAWS

KARNATAKA LAND LAWS