LexM/S STAR WIRE (INDIA) LTD. versus THE STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A
B
MIS STAR WIRE (INDIA) LTD.
v.1
THE STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS.
SEPTEMBER 25, 1996
[K. RAMASWAMY AND S.B. MAJMUDAR, JJ.]
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 :
Ss.4(1) and 16--Purchaser's right to challenge acquisition proceed-
C ings-Notijication uls 4(1) pubUshed on 1.6.1976-Land alienated there-
after-Award made on 3.7.1981-Purchaser challenged Notification and
award by filing a writ petition ii; High Court on 21.1.1994 on the ground that
he was not aware of acquisition proceedings-High Court dismissing writ
petition-Appeal-Held, any incumbrance created by the erstwhile owner of
D
the land after publication of Not(fication uls 4(1) does not bind the State if
possession of land is already taken over, after the award came to be
passed-Petitioner purchased the property covered by the Notification after it
was published and therefore purchaser's title is a void title--Purchaser has no
right to challenge acquisition proceedings much less the award-Besides
latches on the part of petitioner in approaching the court belatedly, disentitle
E him from challenging the legality of the Notification and award.
Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay v. The Industlial Develop-
ment & Investment Co. Pvt. Ltd. and Ors., JT (1986) 8 SC 16; Gumiukh Singh
(Ind Ors., v. The State of Haryana,, JT (1995) 8 SC 208; Y.N. Garg v. State of
Rajasthan, [1996] 1 SCC 284; Sneh Prabha v. State of U.P., [1996] 7 SCC
F 325 and U.P. Jal Nigam Lucknow through its Chainnan & Anr. v. Mis Kalra
Properties (P) Ltd. Lucknow & Ors., [1996] 1 SCC 124, relied on.
G
State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr. v. Bhailal Bhai & Ors., AIR (1964)
SC 1006, followed.
Rabindranath Bose & Ors. v. The Union of India & Ors., [1970] 1 SCC
84; State of Mysore & Ors. v. Narsimha Ram Naik, AIR (1975) SC 2190;
Aflatoon & Anr. v. Lt. Govemor of Delhi, [1975] 4 SCC 285; Mis Tilokchand
Motichand & Ors. v. H.B. Munshi, Commissioner of Sales Tax, Bombay &
Anr., AIR (1970) SC 898; State of Tamil Nadu & Ors. Etc. v. L. Klishnana
H & Ors. Etc., JT (1995) 8 SC 1; Improvement Trnst, Faridkot & Ors. v. Jagjit
6
STAR WIRE (I) LID. v. STATE
7
Singh & Ors., [1987) Supp. SCC 608; State of Punjab & Ors. v. Hari Om A
Cooperative House Building Society Ltd. Amritsar, {1987) Supp. SCC 687;
Market Committee, Hoda/ v. Krishan Murari & Ors., JT (1995) 8 SC 494 and
State of Hmyana v. Dewan Singh, [1996] 7 SCC 394, referred to.
CIVIL APPELLATE· JURISDICTION: Special Leave Petition (C)
No. 20489 of 1996.
From the Judgment and Order dated 25.4.96 of the Punjab &
Haryana High Court in L.P.A.No.437 of 1996.
B
P.P. Rao, S. Janani, K.L. Gupta and R.C. Nagia for the Petitioner.
C
The following Order of the Court was delivered :
Delay condoned .
.a
This special leave petition arises from the judgment of the Punjab & D
Haryana High Court made on April 25, 1996 in LPA No.437/96. Notifica-
tion under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, the
'Act'] was published on June 1, 1976. Declaration under Section 6 of the
Act was published on February 16, 1977. The award was passed on July 3,
1981. Thereafter, the reference also become final. The petitioner has
challenged the notification, the declaration and the award as illegal, it E
contends that the award does not come in the way of the petitioner in filing
the writ petition on January 21,1994. The High Court has dismissed the
writ petition on the grounds of laches.
Shri P.P. Rao, learned senior counsel for the petitioner, contends p
that the petitioner had no knowledge of the acquisition proceedings; as
soon as it came to know of the acquisition, it had challenged the validity
of the acquisition proceedings and, therefore, it furnishes cause of action
to the petitioner. He further contends that the writ petition could not be
dismissed on the ground of laches but was required to be considered on
merits. We find no force in the contention. Any encumbrance created by G
the erstwhile owner of the land after publication of the notification under
Section 4( 1) does not bind the State if the possession of the land is already
taken over, after the award came to be passed. The land stood vested -in
the State free from all encumbrances under Section 16. In Gunnukh Singh
& Ors. v. The State of Haryana, JT (1995) 8 SC 208, this Court has held H
8
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1996] SUPP. 7 S.C.R.
A that a subsequent purchaser is not entitled to challenge the legality of the
acquisition proceedings on the grExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.