LexMEERA SAHNI versus LT. GOVERNOR OF DELHI & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
--- MEERA SAHNI v. LT. GOVERNOR OF DELHI 1013 & ORS. these notifications before the High Court, which was dis- A missed. On appeal, this Court upheld the acquisition pro- ceedings. Thereafter the Land Acquisition Officer passed the award. Aggrieved by the said award, appellants filed -'f review petition before the High Court and thereafter filed . second substantive writ petition for declaring the acqui- B sition proceedings as illegal and void on the ground that the lands in dispute were purchased only after obtaining due permission under s.5 of the Delhi Lands (Restrictions and Transfer) Act, 1972 and that the sale deeds executed in their favour were duly registered with the sub-registrar with the endorsement that No Objection Certificate (NOC) c was obtained. High Court dismissed the review and writ petitions. Hence these appeals. '- Dismissing the appeals, the Court .. D I HELD: 1.1 When a piece of land is sought to be ac- quired, a notification under s.4 of Land Acquisition Act is required to be issued by the State Government strictly in accordance with law. The said notification is also required to be followed by a declaration to be made under s.6 of E the Land Acquisition Act and with the issuance of such a notification any encumbrance created by ~he owner, or any transfer made after the issuance. of such a notifica- tion would be deemed to be void and would not be bind- ,. ing on the Government. [Para 12] [1022-F & G] ·1 F UP Jal Nigam, Lucknow through its Chairman and Anr. v. Kalra Properties (P) Ltd., Lucknow and Ors. (1996) 3 SCC 124 ; Sneh Prabha (Smt) and Ors. v. State of UP and Anr. (1996) 7 SCC 426; Ajay Kishan Shinghal & Ors. v. Union of India (1996) 10 SCC 721; Star Wire (India) Ltd. v. State of G • ~,...>( Haryana and Ors. (1996) 11 SCC 698 - relied on . Roshanara Begum v. Union of India 61(1996) DLT 206; Murari and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. (1997) 1 SCC 15 - referred to. H 1014 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 10 S.C.R. A 1.2. Under the Land Acquisition Act, the subsequent purchaser cannot challenge the acquisition proceedings and that he would be only entitled to get the compensa- tion. [Para 13] [1024-A] 2. In order to meet the increasing demand of accom- B modation for the larg~ population in Delhi, it was neces- sary for the Central Government and the State Govern- ment ~o take appropriate steps for acquiring large tracts . of Jand. The Delhi Lands (Restrictions on Transfer) Act, 1972 prohibits any transfer.by way of sale, mortgage, gift, C lease or othenr.iise, of any land which is the subject mat- ter of acquisition or in respect of which acquisition pro- ceeding is initiated or proposed to be initiated except by way of seeking and obtaining previous permission in writ- ing from the competent authority. It is true that the said D special Act dealing with restrictions on transfer of land in Delhi envisages certain parameters which if satisfied would permit a rand· holder to transfer his I md to a third party but such transfer is possible orily when prior per- mission iri 'writing is sought for and obtained from the E competent authority. [Paras 14, 15] [1024-B,C,E,F,G & H] 3.1 The appellants have placed copies of their respec- tive sale deeds through which they have allegedly ac- quired the title of the land in question from the original land holders. Copies of the orders passed by the Tehsildar F (Notification) on behalf of Additional District Magistrate (Land Acquisition) Delhi allegedly _granting permission for transfer and alleged NOC obtained by the predecessors in-interest of the appellants are also placed on record by the appellants to fortify their arguments that the orders G were passed by the competent authority under the provi- sions of the Act and also to support their claim that the transaction of sale was performed validly and th.at the land stood transferred in. their favour with mutations granted. [Para 16] [1028-A,B & C] H y- MEERA SAHNI v. LT. GOVERNOR OF DELHI 1015 ~- ~ & ORS. 3.2. The appellants, in support of their claim had A placed two non statutory formats. One of the formats was under the caption "Statement to be furnished to the Reg- istering Officer for ensuring non contravention of s.8 of the Delhi Lands Registration of Transfer Act, 1972" and - '( the other format, allegedly an order to be passed by the B Tehsildar or an Additional District Magistrate. Permission to transfer any s
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.