THE U.P. JAL NIGAM, LUCKNOW THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN AND ANR. versus M/S KALRA PROPERTIES (P) LTD., LUCKNOW AND ORS.

Citation: [1996] 1 S.C.R. 683 · Decided: 17-01-1996 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 4 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

\ 
' 
THE U.P. JAL NIGAM, LUCKNOW THROUGH 
ITS CHAIRMAN AND ANR. 
v. 
MIS KALRA PROPERTIES (P) LTD., LUCKNOW AND ORS. 
JANUARY 17, 1996 
[K. RAMASWAMY AND G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.] 
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 : Sections 4( 1), SA, 6, 11-A, 17(2), 17(4), 
23(1), 24 and 48(1). 
Land Acquisition-Notification and Declaration-Possession of land 
taken by State before publication of declaration-Purchase of land there-
afte~laim of compensation by purchase,-Held sale was void against 
Stat&-Purchaser acquired no interest in land-Cannot challenge the notifica-
tion-But can claini compensation as a person interested. 
A 
B 
c 
D 
~ 
Compensation-Determination of-Land acquired in undeveloped 
area-Subsequent development held i1relevant for determination of compen-
sation. 
Compensation-Circulars issued by State Govemment-Dete1mination E 
of compensation on the basis of Basic . Valuation Registe,-Hefd illegal. 
_. 
Proceedings for acquisition of land which is the subject matter of 
appeal were initiated to enable the Appellant-Nigam to set up a pumping 
station to drain out flood water from low lying areas. While the Notifica-
tions under sections 4(1), 17(4) and 5-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 F 
were published on 8th March, 1973, the declaration under section 6 was 
published on October 9, 1973. However, the possession of land was taken 
before publication of the declaration. Subsequent thereto the respondent 
purchased the acquired land under a sale deed for a consideration of Rs. 
60,000 and filed a writ claiming compensation for the acquired land. A G 
Division Bench of the High Court directed that compensation should be 
paid @ Rs. 200 per square foot as determined by the Collector. The 
Collector had determined the compensation as per basic valuation cir-
culars issued by the Government of U.P. 
In appeal to this Court it was contended for the appellant that in H 
683 
( 
684 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1996] 1 S.C.R. 
A 
determining the compensation the Collector had committed an obvious 
error on the face of record and conse11uently the directions issued by the 
,.( 
B 
High Court were vitiated by manifest error of law. 
For the respondent it was contended that (i) the notification under 
section 4(1) and the declaration under section 6 stood lapsed by operation 
of section 11-A because possession of the land was not valid as it was taken 
before publication of declaration. Therefore, the respondent was entitled 
to compensation on the basis of prevailing market value; and (ii) as the 
circulars issued by the U.P. Government accepted the position that the 
basic valuation would form the basis for determination of compensation 
C under section 23(1), the High Court was right in accepting the valuation 
made by the Collector. 
Allowing the appeal, this Court 
HELD: 1. After the notification under Section 4(1) is published in the 
D Gazette any encumbrance created by the owner does not bind the Govern-
• 
ment and the purchaser does not acquire any title to the property. In this 
r 
case, notification under Section 4(1) was published on March 24, 1973. 
Possession of the land was taken on July 5, 1973 but declaration under 
Section 6 was published later. Power under Section 17(4) was exercised 
E dispensing with the enquiry under Section SA and on service of the notice 
under Section 9 possession was taken, siilce urgency was acute viz., pump· 
ing station house was to be constructed to drain out flood water. Conse .. 
quently, the land stood vested in the State under Section 17(2) free from all 
encumbrances. Once possession is taken, by operation of Section 17(2), the 
F 
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. (688-B-F] 
G 
2. Since the respondent had purchased the lanrl after the notification 
under Section 4(1) was published, the sale is void against the State and it 
ae<1uired no right, title or interest in the land. Consequently, it cannot 
challenge the validity of the notification or the regularity in taking posses-
sion of the land. (688-F-G] 
H 
3. The instructions issued by the Government for determination of 
U.P.JALNIGAMv. KALRAPROPERTIES(P)LTD. 
685 
the market value on the basis of basic val

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