# SHIV KUMAR & ANR v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS

- **Citation:** [2019] 13 S.C.R. 695
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2019-10-14
- **Case number:** Civil Appeal No. 8003 of 2019
- **Bench:** Arun Mishra, M. R. Shah, B. R. Gavai
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/shiv-kumar-anr-v-union-of-india-ors-33328
- **Pages:** 26

## Headnote

Land Acquisition Act, 1894: s.4 - Whether a purchaser of
the property after issuance of notification under s.4 of the Act of
1894, can invoke the provisions contained in s.24 of the Act of
2013 - Held: An incumbent, who has purchased the land after s.4
notification, has no right to question the acquisition - The Act of
2013 intends to benefit landowners mentioned in the notification
under s.4 and not such purchasers who purchase the land after it
has been vested in the State - Such purchasers do not have right
to receive the higher compensation under the provisions contained
in the Act of 2013 - Proviso to s.24(2) makes it clear that in case
compensation concerning the majority of landholding has not been
deposited, then recorded owner(s) at the time of issuance of
notification under s.4 of the Act of 1894 shall have the right to
receive the compensation - A transaction effected after s.4
notification is illegal and void - Such void transactions are not
validated under the Act of 2013 - Thus, the Act of 2013 does not
confer any right on purchaser whose sale is ab initio void - Right
to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition,
Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 - s.24(2) and its proviso.
Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land
Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013: ss.3(c), 3(r)
- Affected family, land owner - Meaning of - Discussed.
Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land
Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013: s.24(2) -
Who can claim declaration/rights under s.24(2) for the restoration
of land or lapse of acquisition - Held: It cannot be by a person
with no title in the land - A person cannot enforce and ripe fruits
based on a void transaction to start claiming title and possession
of the land by seeking a declaration under s.24 of the Act of 2013;
 [2019] 13 S.C.R. 695
695
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
696
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 13 S.C.R.
it will amount to conferment of benefit never contemplated by the
law - The provision of the Act of 2013 cannot be said to be enabling
or authorizing a purchaser after s.4 Notification to question
proceeding taken under the Act of 1894 of taking possession -
What cannot be done directly cannot be permitted in an indirect
manner - Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - s.4.
Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land
Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013: s.24(2) -
Subsequent purchasers cannot be termed to be affected persons
within the provisions of Act of 2013 - Thus, no right can be claimed
based on a transfer made by way of execution of Power of
Attorney, Will, etc., as it does not create any interest in immovable
property.
Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land
Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013: Object of
the Act - Held: The provisions of the Act of 2013 aim at the
acquisition of land with least disturbance to the landowners and
other affected families and to provide just and fair compensation
to affected families whose land has been acquired or proposed to
be acquired or are affected and to make adequate provisions for
such affected persons for their rehabilitation and resettlement -
The provisions of Act of 2013 aim at ousting all inter-meddlers from
the fray by ensuring payment in the bank account of landholders
under s.77 of the Act - The intendment of the Act of 2013 is to
benefit farmers etc. - Subsequent purchasers cannot be said to be
landowners entitled to restoration of land and cannot be termed
to be affected persons within the provisions of Act of 2013.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. An incumbent, who has purchased the land after
section 4 notification, has no right to question the acquisition.
The Act of 2013 intend to benefit landowners mentioned in the
notification under Section 4, not for the benefit of such
purchasers who purchase the land after it has been vested in
the State. Sub-section 4 of Section 11 of the Act of 2013, which
is ak

## Text

_Characters 0–39,906 of 58,727. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39906 for what follows._

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
695
SHIV KUMAR & ANR.
v.
UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 8003 of 2019)
OCTOBER 14, 2019
[ARUN MISHRA, M. R. SHAH AND B. R. GAVAI, JJ.]
Land Acquisition Act, 1894: s.4 - Whether a purchaser of
the property after issuance of notification under s.4 of the Act of
1894, can invoke the provisions contained in s.24 of the Act of
2013 - Held: An incumbent, who has purchased the land after s.4
notification, has no right to question the acquisition - The Act of
2013 intends to benefit landowners mentioned in the notification
under s.4 and not such purchasers who purchase the land after it
has been vested in the State - Such purchasers do not have right
to receive the higher compensation under the provisions contained
in the Act of 2013 - Proviso to s.24(2) makes it clear that in case
compensation concerning the majority of landholding has not been
deposited, then recorded owner(s) at the time of issuance of
notification under s.4 of the Act of 1894 shall have the right to
receive the compensation - A transaction effected after s.4
notification is illegal and void - Such void transactions are not
validated under the Act of 2013 - Thus, the Act of 2013 does not
confer any right on purchaser whose sale is ab initio void - Right
to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition,
Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 - s.24(2) and its proviso.
Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land
Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013: ss.3(c), 3(r)
- Affected family, land owner - Meaning of - Discussed.
Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land
Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013: s.24(2) -
Who can claim declaration/rights under s.24(2) for the restoration
of land or lapse of acquisition - Held: It cannot be by a person
with no title in the land - A person cannot enforce and ripe fruits
based on a void transaction to start claiming title and possession
of the land by seeking a declaration under s.24 of the Act of 2013;
 [2019] 13 S.C.R. 695
695
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
696
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 13 S.C.R.
it will amount to conferment of benefit never contemplated by the
law - The provision of the Act of 2013 cannot be said to be enabling
or authorizing a purchaser after s.4 Notification to question
proceeding taken under the Act of 1894 of taking possession -
What cannot be done directly cannot be permitted in an indirect
manner - Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - s.4.
Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land
Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013: s.24(2) -
Subsequent purchasers cannot be termed to be affected persons
within the provisions of Act of 2013 - Thus, no right can be claimed
based on a transfer made by way of execution of Power of
Attorney, Will, etc., as it does not create any interest in immovable
property.
Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land
Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013: Object of
the Act - Held: The provisions of the Act of 2013 aim at the
acquisition of land with least disturbance to the landowners and
other affected families and to provide just and fair compensation
to affected families whose land has been acquired or proposed to
be acquired or are affected and to make adequate provisions for
such affected persons for their rehabilitation and resettlement -
The provisions of Act of 2013 aim at ousting all inter-meddlers from
the fray by ensuring payment in the bank account of landholders
under s.77 of the Act - The intendment of the Act of 2013 is to
benefit farmers etc. - Subsequent purchasers cannot be said to be
landowners entitled to restoration of land and cannot be termed
to be affected persons within the provisions of Act of 2013.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. An incumbent, who has purchased the land after
section 4 notification, has no right to question the acquisition.
The Act of 2013 intend to benefit landowners mentioned in the
notification under Section 4, not for the benefit of such
purchasers who purchase the land after it has been vested in
the State. Sub-section 4 of Section 11 of the Act of 2013, which
is akin to section 4 of the Act of 1894, contains a prohibition
that no person shall make any transaction or cause any
transaction of land or create any encumbrance on land from the
date of publication of such notification. Without seeking
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
697
exemption from the Collector, there is a total prohibition on any
transaction of land. Whereas the legal position under the Act of
1894 was that a transaction effected after section 4 notification
was illegal and void. [Paras 6, 8, 9] [703-F; 709-A-B]
Government (NCT of Delhi) v. Manav Dharam Trust
& Anr. (2017) 6 SCC 751 : [2017] 4 SCR 232 -
overruled.
U.P. Jal Nigam, Lucknow through its Chairman & Anr.
v. Kalra Properties (P) Ltd., Lucknow & Ors. (1996)
3 SCC 124 : [1996] 1 SCR 683 ; Sneh Prabha (Smt.)
& Ors. v. State of U.P. & Anr. (1996) 7 SCC 426 :
[1995] 5 Suppl. SCR 264 ; Meera Sahni v. Lieutenant
Governor of Delhi & Ors. (2008) 9 SCC 177 : [2008]
10 SCR 1012 ; V. Chandrasekaran & Anr.
v. Administrative Officer & Ors. (2012) 12 SCC 133 :
[2012] 10 SCR 603 ; Rajasthan State Industrial
Development and Investment Corpn. v. Subhash Sindhi
Cooperative Housing Society, Jaipur & Ors. (2013) 5
SCC 427 : [2015] 5 SCR 365 ; Rajasthan Housing
Board v. New Pink City Nirman Sahkari Samiti
Ltd. & Anr. (2015) 7 SCC 601 : [2015] 5 SCR 365 ;
M. Venkatesh & Ors. v. Commissioner, Bangalore
Development Authority, etc. (2015) 17 SCC 1 : [2015]
11 SCR 454 - referred to.
2. The 'affected family' has been defined under section 3(c)
of the 2013 Act. The affected family includes landowners for
whose benefit land is held before the acquisition. A person
acquiring interest after section 11 notification cannot be said to
be included in the "affected family" at all. Landowner as defined
in Section 3(r) is a person who is recorded as the owner of land
or building. A purchaser after section 11 cannot be said to be a
landowner within the purview of section 3(r). [Paras 10, 12] [709G; 710-F; 711-B-F]
3.1 Section 24(2) provides that in case the award has been
passed five years or more prior to the commencement of the
Act, but the physical possession of the land has not been taken,
or the compensation has not been paid, the said proceedings
shall be deemed to have lapsed. In the instant case, there is
SHIV KUMAR & ANR. v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
698
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 13 S.C.R.
nothing to doubt that actual physical possession had been taken
in 2000. Thus, Section 24(2) is not attracted in the case. Even
otherwise, proviso to Section 24(2) does not recognize a
purchaser after Section 4 notification inasmuch as it provides that
where an award has been made, and the compensation in respect
of a majority of land holdings has not been deposited in the
account of the beneficiaries, then, all beneficiaries specified in
the notification for acquisition issued under the Act of 1894, shall
be entitled to compensation under the provisions of the Act of
2013. The proviso makes it clear that in case of compensation
concerning the majority of landholding has not been deposited,
then recorded owner(s) at the time of issuance of notification
under section 4 of the Act of 1894 shall have the right to receive
the compensation. Purchasers after section 4 notification have
not been given the right to receive the higher compensation
under the provisions contained in the Act of 2013. [Paras 16,
17] [713-D-F-H; 714-A ]
3.2 The Act of 2013 presupposes that a person is required
to be rehabilitated and resettled. Such a person who has
purchased after section 4 notification as sale deed is void under
the Act of 1894, cannot claim rehabilitation and resettlement as
per policy envisaged under the Act of 2013, as his land has not
been acquired, but he has purchased a property which has
already been acquired by the State Government, he cannot claim
even higher compensation, as per proviso to section 24(2) under
the Act of 2013. Given that, the transaction of sale, effected after
section 4 notification, is void, is ineffective to transfer the land,
such incumbents cannot invoke the provisions of section 24. As
the sale transaction did not clothe them with the title when the
purchase was made; they cannot claim 'possession' and challenge
the acquisition as having lapsed under section 24 by questioning
the legality or regularity of proceedings of taking over of
possession under the Act of 1894. It would be unfair and unjust
and against the policy of the law to permit such a person to claim
resettlement or claim the land back as envisaged under the Act
of 2013. When he has not been deprived of his livelihood but is
a purchaser under a void transaction, the outcome of exploitative
tactics played upon poor farmers who were unable to defend
themselves. Thus, under the provisions of Section 24 of the Act
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
699
of 2013, challenge to acquisition proceeding of the taking over
of possession under the Act of 1894 cannot be made, based on
a void transaction nor declaration can be sought under section
24(2) by such incumbents to obtain the land. The Act of 2013
does not confer any right on purchaser whose sale is ab initio
void. Such void transactions are not validated under the Act of
2013. No rights are conferred by the provisions contained in
the 2013 Act on such a purchaser as against the State. 'Void is,
ab initio,' a nullity, is inoperative, and a person cannot claim the
land or declaration once no title has been conferred upon him
to claim that the land should be given back to him. A person
cannot enforce and ripe fruits based on a void transaction to start
claiming title and possession of the land by seeking a declaration
under Section 24 of the Act of 2013; it will amount to conferment
of benefit never contemplated by the law. [Paras 18-21] [714-BC-E-H; 715-A-D]
4. The provisions of the Act of 2013 aimed at the
acquisition of land with least disturbance to the landowners and
other affected families and to provide just and fair compensation
to affected families whose land has been acquired or proposed
to be acquired or are affected and to make adequate provisions
for such affected persons for their rehabilitation and
resettlement. The intendment of Act of 2013 is to benefit farmers
etc. Subsequent purchasers cannot be said to be landowners
entitled to restoration of land and cannot be termed to be
affected persons within the provisions of Act of 2013. It is not
open to them to claim that the proceedings have lapsed under
Section 24(2). Apart from that the claims have been made on
transactions based on the power of attorneys, agreements, etc.;
as such also they are not entitled to any indulgence and cannot
invoke provisions of section 24(2) of the 2013 Act. No right can
be claimed based on a transfer made by way of execution of
Power of Attorney, Will, etc., as it does not create any interest
in immovable property. [Paras 22, 23, 24] [715-F-H; 716-A; 718E]
Suraj Lamp and Industries Pvt. Ltd. through Director
v. State of Haryana & Anr.; Mamleshwar Prasad v.
Kanahaiya Lal, (1975) 2 SCC 232 ; A.R. Anutulay v.
R.S.Nayak (1988) 2 SCC 602 : [1975] 3 SCR 834 ;
SHIV KUMAR & ANR. v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
700
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 13 S.C.R.
State of Uttar Pradesh v. Synthetics and Chemicals Ltd.
(1991) 4 SCC 139 ; State of B. Shama Rao v. Union
Territory of Pondicherry AIR 1967 SC 1480 ;
Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Gurnam Kaur
(1989) 1 SCC 101 : [1988] 2 Suppl. SCR 929 ;
Narmada Bachao Andolan (III) v. State of Madhya
Pradesh, AIR 2011 SC 1989 : [2011] 6 SCR 443 ;
Hyder Consulting (UK) Ltd. v. State of Odisha (2015)
2 SCC 189 : [2014] 14 SCR 1029 ; Sant Lal Gupta v.
Modern Coop. Societies Ltd. [2010] 13 SCC 336 :
[2010] 13 SCR 621 ; Vineeta Sharma v. Rakesh
Sharma (2019) 6 SCC 162 - referred to.
Case Law Reference
[2017] 4 SCR 232
overruled
Para 3
[1996] 1 SCR 683
referred to
Para 6 (a)
[1995] 5 Suppl. SCR 264
referred to
Para 6 (b)
[2008] 10 SCR1012
referred to
Para 6 (c)
[2012] 10 SCR 603
referred to
Para 6 (d)
[2015] 5 SCR 365
referred to
Para 6(g)
[2015] 11 SCR 454
referred to
Para 6(f)
[2015] 5 SCR 365
referred to
Para 24
(1975) 2 SCC 232
referred to
Para 26
[1975] 3 SCR 834
referred to
Para 26
(1991) 4 SCC 139
referred to
Para 26
AIR 1967 SC 1480
referred to
Para 26
[1988] 2 Suppl. SCR 929
referred to
Para 26
[2011] 6 SCR 443
referred to
Para 26
[2014] 14 SCR 1029
referred to
Para 26
[2010] 13 SCR 621
referred to
Para 26
(2019) 6 SCC 162
referred to
Para 26
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
701
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 8003
of 2019.
From the Judgment and Order dated 18.01.2019 of the Division
Bench of the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in Writ Petition (C)
No. 92 of 2018.
S. N. Bhatm B. S. Mathur and Rajat Mathur, Advs. for the
Appellants.
K. M. Natraj, ASG and Debashish Rout, Advs. for the
Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
ARUN MISHRA, J.
1. The question involved in the matter is whether a purchaser of
the property after issuance of notification under section 4 of the Land
Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, "the 1894 Act"), can invoke the
provisions contained in section 24 of the Right to Fair Compensation
and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement
Act, 2013 (for short, "the Act of 2013").
2. Notification No.F.10(29)/96/L&B/LA/11394, dated 27.10.1999,
was issued for the acquisition of the land situated in the revenue estate
of Village Pansali, Delhi, for the public purpose of the Rohini Residential
Scheme under planned development of Delhi. It was followed by the
declaration under section 6 issued on 3.4.2000. Possession was taken
on 12.5.2000. Subsequently, the petitioners purchased the land on
5.7.2001 by way of Registered Sale Deed executed by one Satya Narain,
the Power of Attorney holder of original owners. The purchasers then
participated in the proceedings for the determination of compensation
under sections 9 and 10 of the 1894 Act. The award was passed on
3.4.2002. In the meanwhile, an unauthorized colony came up with the
name of Deep Vihar, Pansali, Pooth Kalan, Delhi. The petitioners
claimed that they continued in the actual physical possession of the land
even after passing of the award on 17.09.2008 and the same formed
part of the unauthorized colony. The Government of NCT of Delhi
provisionally regularised the colony. The Act of 2013 came in force from
1.1.2014. The respondents never took the actual physical possession
of the land; as such, the acquisition has lapsed. The purchasers/
petitioners filed a writ petition at the High Court of Delhi. A Division
Bench of the High Court has dismissed the writ application.
SHIV KUMAR & ANR. v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
702
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 13 S.C.R.
3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the purchasers
submitted that the High Court has erred in rejecting the writ application
on the ground that the purchasers after issuance of notification under
section 4 of the 1894 Act cannot question the land acquisition. The
decision runs contrary to the dictum laid down by this Court in
Government (NCT of Delhi) v. Manav Dharam Trust & Anr. (2017)
6 SCC 751. Learned counsel further submitted that the High Court has
also erred in dismissing the writ application on the ground that petitioners
have admitted that the property is part of the unauthorized colony of
Deep Vihar.
4. Shri K.M. Natraj learned Additional Solicitor General has
supported the impugned judgment and order and submitted that the
purchase made after the notification issued under section 4 of the 1894
Act and declaration under section 6 is void. The purchasers had acquired
no right, and they cannot question the land acquisition, nor they can
invoke the provisions contained in section 24 of the Act of 2013. It was
further submitted that decision in Manav Dharam Trust (supra) is per
incuriam because of a large number of decisions of this Court holding
that sale made after issuance of notification under section 4 is void.
5. It is crystal clear that for seeking the relief under section 24,
the proceedings for taking possession under Act of 1894 have been put
into question as illusory one, and possession continues with appellants.
The decision in Manav Dharam Trust (supra) has been mainly relied
upon by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the purchasers/
petitioners in which a Division Bench opined that subsequent purchasers
are affected by the acquisition. Therefore, they are entitled to seek a
declaration of the lapse of acquisition under the Act of 2013. It has
further opined that since declaration is sought, the challenge is not to
the acquisition proceedings. Because of the operation of section 24(2)
of the 2013 Act, the ratio of the various cases decided by this Court
under the Act of 1894, has no application to such situations. It has
observed thus:
"21. All the decisions cited by the learned Senior Counsel
appearing for the appellants, no doubt, have categorically held
that the subsequent purchasers do not have locus standi to
challenge the acquisition proceedings. However, in the present
case, the challenge is not to the acquisition proceedings; it is only
for a declaration that the acquisition proceedings have lapsed
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
703
because of the operation of Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act, and
therefore, the ratio in those cases has no application to these
cases.
22. It is one thing to say that there is a challenge to the legality
or propriety or validity of the acquisition proceedings and yet
another thing to say that by virtue of the operation of subsequent
legislation, the acquisition proceedings have lapsed.
23. In all the decisions cited by the learned Senior Counsel for
the appellants, which we have referred to above, this Court has
protected the rights of the subsequent purchaser to claim
compensation, being a person interested in the compensation,
despite holding that they have no locus standi to challenge the
acquisition proceedings.
28. Thus, the subsequent purchaser, the assignee, the successor
in interest, the power-of-attorney holder, etc., are all persons who
are interested in compensation/landowners/affected persons in
terms of the 2013 Act and such persons are entitled to file a case
for a declaration that the land acquisition proceedings have lapsed
by virtue of operation of Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act. It is a
declaration qua the land wherein indisputably they have an
interest, and they are affected by such acquisition. For such a
declaration, it cannot be said that the respondent-writ petitioners
do not have any locus standi."
6. First, we advert to the legal position concerning the purchases
made on 5.7.2001, made after notification under Section 4 had been
issued under the Act of 1894. Law is well settled in this regard by a
catena of decisions of this Court that an incumbent, who has purchased
the land after section 4 notification, has no right to question the
acquisition.
6 (a). In U.P. Jal Nigam, Lucknow through its Chairman &
Anr. v. Kalra Properties (P) Ltd., Lucknow & Ors. (1996) 3 SCC
124 it was observed :
"3. ......That apart, since M/s. Kalra Properties, the respondent
had purchased the land after the notification under Section 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
SHIV KUMAR & ANR. v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
[ARUN MISHRA, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
704
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 13 S.C.R.
regularity in taking possession of the land before the publication
of the declaration under Section 6 was published."
6(b). In Sneh Prabha (Smt.) & Ors. v. State of U.P. & Anr.
(1996) 7 SCC 426 it has been laid down that subsequent purchaser
cannot take advantage of land policy. It was observed:
"5. Though at first blush, we were inclined to agree with the
appellant but on a deeper probe, we find that the appellant is not
entitled to the benefit of the Land Policy. It is settled law that
any person who purchases land after the publication of the
notification under Section 4(1), does so at his/her peril. The object
of publication of the notification under Section 4(1) is notice to
everyone that the land is needed or is likely to be needed for a
public purpose, and the acquisition proceedings point out an
impediment to anyone to encumber the land acquired thereunder.
It authorizes the designated officer to enter upon the land to do
preliminaries, etc. Therefore, any alienation of land after the
publication of the notification under Section 4(1) does not bind
the Government or the beneficiary under the acquisition. On
taking possession of the land, all rights, titles, and interests in land
stand vested in the State, under Section 16 of the Act, free from
all encumbrances, and thereby, absolute title in the land is
acquired thereunder. If any subsequent purchaser acquires land,
his/her only right would be subject to the provisions of the Act
and/ or to receive compensation for the land. In a recent
judgment, this Court in Union of India v. Shri Shivkumar Bhargava
and Ors. [1995] 1 SCR 354 considered the controversy and held
that a person who purchases land subsequent to the notification
is not entitled to an alternative site. It is seen that the Land Policy
expressly conferred that right only on that person whose land
was acquired. In other words, the person must be the owner of
the land on the date on which notification under Section 4(1) was
published. By necessary implication, the subsequent purchaser
was elbowed out from the policy and became disentitled to the
benefit of the Land Policy."
6(c). In Meera Sahni v. Lieutenant Governor of Delhi & Ors.
(2008) 9 SCC 177, the Court had relied upon the decision described
above and observed thus:
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
705
"21. In view of the aforesaid decisions, it is by now well-settled
law that under the Land Acquisition Act, the subsequent purchaser
cannot challenge the acquisition proceedings and that he would
be only entitled to get the compensation."
6(d). In V. Chandrasekaran & Anr. v. Administrative Officer
& Ors. (2012) 12 SCC 133, the Court has considered various decisions
and opined that the purchaser after Section 4 notification could not
challenge land acquisition on any ground whatsoever. The Court
observed:
"15. The issue of maintainability of the writ petitions by the person
who purchases the land subsequent to a notification being issued
under Section 4 of the Act has been considered by this Court
time and again. In Leela Ram v. Union of India AIR 1975 SC
2112, this Court held that anyone 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, this 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 anyone to
encumber the land acquired thereunder." The alienation after that
does not bind the State or the beneficiary under the acquisition.
The purchaser is entitled only to receive compensation. While
deciding the said case, reliance was placed on an earlier judgment
of this Court in Union of India v. Shiv Kumar Bhargava and Ors.
(1995) 2 SCC 427.
18. In view of the above, the law on the issue can be summarized
to the effect that a person who purchases land subsequent to
the issuance of a Section 4 notification with respect to it, is not
competent to challenge the validity of the acquisition proceedings
on any ground whatsoever, for the reason that the sale deed
executed in his favour does not confer upon him, any title and at
the most he can claim compensation on the basis of his vendor's
title."
(emphasis supplied)
6(e). In Rajasthan State Industrial Development and
Investment Corpn. v. Subhash Sindhi Cooperative Housing Society,
Jaipur & Ors. (2013) 5 SCC 427, it is laid down:
SHIV KUMAR & ANR. v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
[ARUN MISHRA, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
706
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 13 S.C.R.
"13. There can be no quarrel with respect to the settled legal
proposition that a purchaser, subsequent to the issuance of a
Section 4 Notification in respect of the land, cannot challenge
the acquisition proceedings, and can only claim compensation as
the sale transaction in such a situation is Void qua the
Government. Any such encumbrance created by the owner, or
any transfer of the land in question that is made after the issuance
of such a notification would be deemed to be void and would
not be binding on the Government. (Vide: Gian Chand v. Gopala
and Ors. (1995) 2 SCC 528; Yadu Nandan Garg v. State of
Rajasthan and Ors. AIR 1996 SC 520; Jaipur Development
Authority v. Mahavir Housing Coop. Society, Jaipur, and Ors.
(1996) 11 SCC 229; Secretary, Jaipur Development Authority,
Jaipur v. Daulat Mal Jain and Ors. (1997) 1 SCC 35; Meera
Sahni v. Lieutenant Governor of Delhi and Ors. (2008) 9 SCC
177; Har Narain (Dead) by L.Rs. v. Mam Chand (Dead) by
L.Rs. and Ors. (2010) 13 SCC 128; and V. Chandrasekaran and
Anr. v. The Administrative Officer and Ors. JT 2012 (9) SC
260)."
(emphasis supplied)
6(f). A Three-Judge Bench in Rajasthan Housing Board v. New
Pink City Nirman Sahkari Samiti Ltd. & Anr., (2015) 7 SCC 601, in
the context of section 4 as well as section 42 of the Rajasthan Tenancy
Act which also prohibited the transactions from being entered into with
SC/ST persons, has observed:
"33. The other decision relied upon by the Society is V.
Chandrasekaran and Anr. v. Administrative Officer and Ors.
2012 (12) SCC 133] wherein this Court laid down thus:
17. 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, this 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
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
707
the purchaser cannot challenge the acquisition proceedings. (See
also: Tika Ram v. the State of U.P. (2009) 10 SCC 689).
18. In view of the above, the law on the issue can be summarized
to the effect that a person who purchases land subsequent to
the issuance of a Section 4 notification with respect to it, is not
competent to challenge the validity of the acquisition proceedings
on any ground whatsoever, for the reason that the sale deed
executed in his favour does not confer upon him, any title and at
the most he can claim compensation on the basis of his vendor's
title.
34. Reliance has been placed on Dossibai Nanabhoy Jeejeebhoy
v. P.M. Bharucha 1958 (60) Bom.LR 1208] so as to contend that
the 'person interested' in the land under Section 9 of the Land
Acquisition Act would include a person who claims interest in
compensation to be paid on account of acquisition of land ad the
interest contemplated Under Section 9 is not restricted to legal
or proprietary estate or interest in the land but such interest as
will sustain a claim to apportionment, is the owner of the land.
In our opinion, the decision is of no avail. The instant transaction
being void as per Section 42 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, and
the property was inalienable to non-SC. Obviously, the logical
corollary has to be taken that no right in apportionment to
compensation can be claimed by the Society."
6(g). In M. Venkatesh & Ors. v. Commissioner, Bangalore
Development Authority, etc. (2015) 17 SCC 1, a three-Judge Bench
has opined:
"16. That brings us to the question of whether Prabhaudas Patel
and other respondents in SLP (C) No. 12016 of 2013 were
entitled to any relief from the Court. These respondents claim
to have purchased the suit property in terms of a sale deed dated
22-8-1990, i.e., long after the issuance of the preliminary
Notification published in July 1984. The legal position about the
validity of any such sale, post-issuance of preliminary notification,
is fairly well settled by a long line of the decisions of this Court.
The sale in such cases is void and non-est in the eye of the law
giving to the vendee the limited right to claim compensation and
no more. Reference may in this regard be made to the decision
SHIV KUMAR & ANR. v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
[ARUN MISHRA, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
708
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 13 S.C.R.
of this Court in U.P. Jal Nigam v. Kalra Properties (P) Ltd,
wherein this Court said: (SCC pp. 126-27, para 3)
"3. ... It is settled law that after the notification under Section
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. In this case, Notification
under Section 4(1) was published on 24-3-1973; possession of
the land admittedly was taken on 5-7-1973, and the pumping
station house was constructed. No doubt, declaration under
Section 6 was published later on 8-7-1973. Admittedly power
under Section 17(4) was exercised dispensing with the inquiry
under Section 5-A and on service of the notice under Section 9
possession was taken, since urgency was acute viz. pumping
station house was to be constructed to drain out floodwater.
Consequently, the land stood vested in the State under Section
17(2) free from all encumbrances. It is further settled law that
once possession is taken, by operation of Section 17(2), the land
vests in the State free from all encumbrances unless a notification
under Section 48(1) is published in the gazette withdrawing from
the acquisition. Section 11-A, as amended by Act 68 of 1984,
therefore, does not apply, and the acquisition does not lapse. The
notification under Section 4(1) and the declaration under Section
6, therefore, remain valid. There is no other provision under the
Act to have the acquired land divested, unless, as stated earlier,
notification under Section 48(1) was published, and the possession
is surrendered pursuant thereto. That apart, since M/s Kalra
Properties, the respondent had purchased the land after the
notification under Section 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 the publication of the declaration under Section
6 was published.
(emphasis supplied)"
7. It has been laid down that the purchasers on any ground
whatsoever cannot question proceedings for taking possession. A
purchaser after Section 4 notification does not acquire any right in the
land as the sale is ab initio void and has no right to claim land under
the Policy.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
709
8. When we ponder as to beneficial provisions of the Act of 2013,
they also intend to benefit landowners mentioned in the notification under
Section 4, not for the benefit of such purchasers who purchase the land
after it has been vested in the State.
9. Sub-section 4 of Section 11 of the Act of 2013, which is akin
to section 4 of the Act of 1894, contains a prohibition that no person
shall make any transaction or cause any transaction of land or create
any encumbrance on land from the date of publication of such
notification. Section 11(4) is extracted hereunder:
"11. Publication of preliminary notification and power of
officers thereupon.-
x x x x x
(4) No person shall make any transaction or cause any transaction
of land specified in the preliminary notification or create any
encumbrances on such land from the date of publication of such
notification till such time as the proceedings under this Chapter
are completed:
Provided that the Collector may, on the application made by the
owner of the land so notified, exempt in special circumstances
to be recorded in writing, such owner from the operation of this
subsection:
Provided further that any loss or injury suffered by any person
due to his wilful violation of this provision shall not be made up
by the Collector."
Without seeking exemption from the Collector, there is a total
prohibition on any transaction of land. Whereas the legal position under
the Act of 1894 was that a transaction effected after section 4
notification was illegal and void.
10. When we consider other provisions, the 'affected family' has
been defined under section 3(c) of the 2013 Act. The definition reads
as under:
"3. Definitions.-In this Act, unless the context otherwise
requires,-
(c) "affected family" includes-
(i) a family whose land or other immovable property has been
acquired;
SHIV KUMAR & ANR. v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
[ARUN MISHRA, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
710
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 13 S.C.R.
 (ii) a family which does not own any land but a member or
members of such family may be agricultural labourers,
tenants including any form of tenancy or holding of usufruct
right, share-croppers or artisans or who may be working in
the affected area for three years prior to the acquisition of
the land, whose primary source of livelihood stand affected
by the acquisition of land;
(iii) the Scheduled Tribes and other traditional forest dwellers
who have lost any of their forest rights recognized under
the Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers
(Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006 (2 of 2007) due
to acquisition of land;
(iv) family whose primary source of livelihood for three years
prior to the acquisition of the land is dependent on forests
or water bodies and includes gatherers of forest produce,
hunters, fisherfolk and boatmen, and such livelihood is
affected due to acquisition of land;
 (v) a member of the family who has been assigned land by the
State Government or the Central Government under any of
its schemes and such land is under acquisition;
 (vi) a family residing on any land in the urban areas for
preceding three years or more prior to the acquisition of the
land or whose primary source of livelihood for three years
prior to the acquisition of the land is affected by the
acquisition of such land;"
The affected family includes landowners for whose benefit land
is held before the acquisition. A person acquiring interest after section
11 notification cannot be said to be included in the "affected family" at
all.
11. Definition of 'family' is in section 3(m), it is extracted
hereunder:
"3. Definition.-In this Act, unless the context otherwise
requires,-
.....
(m) "family" includes a person, his or her spouse, minor children,
minor brothers and minor sisters dependent on him: Provided that
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
711
widows, divorcees, and women deserted by families shall be
considered separate families;
Explanation.-An adult of either gender with or without spouse
or children or dependents shall be considered as a separate family
for the purposes of this Act."
12. The definition of 'landowner' is in section 3(r), the same is
extracted hereunder:
"3. Definition.-In this Act, unless the context otherwise
requires,-
.....
(r) "landowner" includes any person,- (i) whose name is
recorded as the owner of the land or building or part thereof, in
the records of the authority concerned; or
(ii) any person who is granted forest rights under the Scheduled
Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of
Forest Rights) Act, 2006 (2 of 2007) or under any other law for
the time being in force; or
(iii) who is entitled to be granted Patta rights on the land under
any law of the State including assigned lands; or (iv) any person
who has been declared as such by an order of the court or
Authority;"
Landowner is a person who is recoded as the owner of land or
building. The record of date of issuance of preliminary notification under
section 11 is relevant. A purchaser after section 11 cannot be said to
be a landowner within the purview of section 3(r).
13. Person interested is defined in section 3(x) thus :
"3. Definition.-In this Act, unless the context otherwise
requires,-
(x) "person interested" means-
(i) all persons claiming an interest in compensation to be
made on account of the acquisition of land under this
Act;
(ii) the Scheduled Tribes and other traditional forest dwellers,
who have lost any forest rights recognized under the
SHIV KUMAR & ANR. v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
[ARUN MISHRA, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
712
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 13 S.C.R.
Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers
(Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006 (2 of 2007);
(iii) a person interested in an easement affecting the land;
(iv) persons having tenancy rights under the relevant State laws
including share-croppers by whatever name they may be
called; and
(v) any person whose primary source of livelihood is likely to
be adversely affected;"
14. A rehabilitation and resettlement scheme has to be prepared
under Section 16. Section 17 deals with the review of such a scheme.
An approved scheme to be made public under Section 18. Section 19
deals with the publication of declaration and summary of rehabilitation
and resettlement scheme. After inquiry, Award is passed by the Collector
under Section 23. The Collector is required to consider, among other
things, the interest of the person claiming the compensation,
rehabilitation, and resettlement while making an award.
15. Section 24 of the Act of 2013, which deals with land
acquisition made under the Act of 1894, is also relevant. The same is
extracted hereunder:
 "24. Land acquisition process under Act No. 1 of 1894
shall be deemed to have lapsed in certain cases - (1)
Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, in any case of
land acquisition proceedings initiated under the Land Acquisition
Act, 1894,-
(a) where no award under section 11 of the said Land
Acquisition Act has been made, then, all provisions of this
Act relating to the determination of compensation shall
apply; or
(b) where an award under said section 11 has been made, then
such proceedings shall continue under the provisions of the
said Land Acquisition Act, as if the said Act has not been
repealed.
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), in case
of land acquisition proceedings initiated under the Land
Acquisition Act, 1894 (1 of 1894), where an award under the
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
713
said section 11 has been made five years or more prior to the
commencement of this Act but the physical possession of the
land has not been taken, or the compensation has not been paid
the said proceedings shall be deemed to have lapsed and the
appropriate Government, if it so chooses, shall initiate the
proceedings of such land acquisition afresh in accordance with
the provisions of this Act:
Provided that where an award has been made, and compensation
in respect of a majority of land holdings has not been deposited
in the account of the beneficiaries, then, all beneficiaries specified
in the notification for acquisition under section 4 of the said Land
Acquisition Act, shall be entitled to compensation in accordance
with the provisions of this Act."
(emphasis supplied)
16. Section 24 (2) provides that in case the award has been
passed five years or more prior to the commencement of the Act, but
the physical possession of the land has not been taken, or the
compensation has not been paid, the said proceedings shall be deemed
to have lapsed. It is not the case set up that compensation had not been
paid to purchasers/owners.