LexKN ASWATHNARAYANA SETTY (D) TR. LRS. & ORS. versus STATE OF KARNATAKA & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2013) 11 S.C.R. 1029 KN ASWATHNARAYANA SETTY (D) TR. LRS. & ORS. v. STATE OF KARNATAKA & ORS. (Special Leave Petition (C) No.22311 of 2012 etc.) DECEMBER 2, 2013 [DR. B.S. CHAUHAN AND S.A. BOBDE, JJ.] Land Acquisition Act, 1894: A B ss. 4 and 48(1) - Purchase of land, subsequent to c issuance of notification for acquisition of land - Competence of purchaser to challenge the validity of acquisition - Held: Vandee not competent to challenge the validity of acquisition - He can at the most claim compensation on the basis of his vendor's title - In the present case, the de-notification of land 0 having been refused by the courts, vendee cannot seek de- notification of the land - He would be bound by the orders of the court. ss. 48(1), 16 and 17 - Application of de-notification of acquired land - Maintainability of - ·Held: Once possession E is taken u/ss. 16 and 17, the land vests in State, free from all encumbrances - Once land is vested in State, free from all encumbrances, it cannot be divested - In the facts of the case, since the possession of the land already taken by the State, application for de-notification, not maintainable. · F Doctrine - Doctrine of tis pendens - Transfer of property pendente lite - Effect of - Held: Transferee cannot deprive the successful plaintiff of the fruits of decree, if purchased the property pendente lite - He is bound by the decree just as G much as he was a party to the suit. Maxim - Maxim ut lite pendente nihil 'innovetur' (During a litigation, nothing new should be introduced). 1029 H 1030 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 11 S.C.R. A The land in question was acquired under Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for the benefit of the State Government Houseless Harijan Employees Association (Respondent No.3 Society). The land was further denotified u/s. 48(1) of the Act, at the behest of the owners 9 of the land. After one round of litigation, the order de- notifying the land was set aside by Supreme Court. During pendency of the appeal before Supreme Cou.rt, the petitioner purchased the land and approached the Government for denotifying the same from acquisition. c Though the land was denotified by the Revenue Minister, by order dated 27.2.2004, the order could not be complied with in view of the fact that the matter had attained finality after having been decided by Supreme Court, and possession of the land had already been taken and 0 handed-over to the respondent-Society on 6.9.2002. Petitioner filed writ petition challenging the order; but the same was dismissed by Single Judge of High Court. Division Bench of High Court affirmed the order of Single Judge. Hence the present appeal. E Dismissing the Petitions, the Court HELD: 1. At the time of purchase of the suit land by the present petitioners the matter was sub-judice before this Court and if the order of de-notification dated F 5.8.1993 stood quashed, it would automatically revive the land acquisition proceedings meaning thereby the notification under Section 4 and declaration under Section 6 resurfaced by operation of law. In such a fact- situation, it is not permissible for the present petitioners to argue that merely because there was no interim order G in the appeal filed by the respondent No.3, petitioners had a right to purchase the land during the pendency of the litigation and would not be bound by the order of this Court quashing the de-notification of acquisition proceedings. [Para 5] [1037-F-H; 1038-A] H KN ASWATHNARAYANA SETTY (D) TR. LRS. v. 1031 STATE OF KARNATAKA 2. Doctrine of /is pendens is based on legal maxim A 'ut lite penden(e nihil innovetur' (During a litigation nothing new should be introduced). This doctrine stood· embodied in Section 52 ·of the Transfer of Property Act 1882. The principle of '/is pendens' .is in accordance with the equity, good conscience or justice because they rest B upon an equitable and just foundation th'!t it will be impossibie to bring an action or suit to a successful. termination if alienations are permitted to prevail. A transferee pendente lite is bound by the· decree just as· much as he was a party to the suit. A litigating party is c exempted from taking notice of a title acquired during the pendency of the litigation. However, mere pendency of a suit does not preverit one of the parties from dealing with the· property constituting the subject matter of the suit. The law simply postulates
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.