SHIV KUMAR & ANR. versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

Citation: [2019] 13 S.C.R. 695 · Decided: 14-10-2019 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARUN MISHRA · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 10 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

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. 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.