U.P. AVAS EVAM VIKAS PARISHAD LUCKNOW (U.P.)
A
v.
SMT. PUSHPA LATA AWASTHI
MARCH 6, 1995
(K. RAMASWAMY AND B.L. HANSARIA, JJ.]
B
Land Acquisition Act, 1894:
¥
Land Acquisition-Notification-Notice to ownel"-No challenge-Sub-
sequent purchaser-Right to challenge.
c
- --(
Land Acquisition-State Act-Incorporation from Central AcHlnless
State legislature incorporates ament!ment it cannot be applied to proceedings
initiated under the State Act.
Disposing the appeals, this Court
D
HELD: 1. Notice was given to original owner and subsequent pur-
)
chaser. No challenge was made to the notification. Therefore, it is not open
to the respondents to challenge the notification after they had purchased
the property in question. (514-B]
2. Unless the State legislature incorporates the amendment, these E
cannot be applied to the proceedings initiated under the State Act. The
notification acquiring the land, t~erefore, does not lapse. Therefore, the
High Court was not justified in quashing the notification. (514-G, 515-A]
I
Gauri Shankar Gaur and Ors. v. State of U.P. and Ors., (1994) 1 SCC F
/
92, referred to.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 3940 of
1995 etc.
From the Judgment and Order dated 3.10.85 of the Allahabad High G
Court in C.M.W.P. No. 15781of1983 ..
-""
O.P. Rana and P.N. Gupta for the Appellant in C.A. No. 3940/95.
Shrish Kr. Misra, AK. Goel, Mrs. Sheela Goel, E.C. Agarwala for
the Respondent.
H
513
514
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1995] 2 S.C.R.
A
The following Order of the Court was delivered :
In view of the fact that the respondents had purchased the property
on May 21, 1983, they cannot have any higher right than what the owner
had. Admittedly, the owner had not challenged the notification. Awasthi
B was the subsequent purchaser from Chotelal. Notice was given to Chote
Lal and Awasthi had not challenged the notification. Therefore, it is not
open to the respondents to challenge the notification after they had pur-
chased the property in question. Under these circumstances, the High
Court was clearly in error in alloWing the Writ Petition No. 15781/83. The
appeal is accordingly allowed. No costs.
c
C.A. Nos. 3942 and 3943 of 1995.
(Arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 2886/86 & 2899/86).
D
Leave granted.
In view of the order of Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (C) No.
\
1143/86, these appeals are allowed. No costs.
C.A.No. 3941 of 1995.
E
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 2885/86).
Though notice was served on the respondent, nobody appears for
him. Leave granted. In Gauri Shankar Gaur and Ors. v. State of U.P. and
Ors., [1994] (1) SCC 92, this Court, one of us - K. Ramaswamy, J.,
F elaborately considered and held that certain provisions of the Land Ac-
quisition Act 1 of 1894 were incorporated in the State Act. Therefore, it is
'- '~
not a case of reference. In consequence, the Land Acquisition Amendment
Act 68 of 1984 was inapplicable. Unless the State legislature incorporates
the amendment, these cannot be applied to the proceedings initiated under
G the State Act. The notification acquiring the land, therefore, does not
lapsed.
~
-
The writ petition was also allowed by the High Court on th~' ground
that notice under s.29 wa§-not served on the respondent. It is stated in the
H counter affidavit thus :
,,
/
U.P.AVASAVAMVIKAS PARISHAD v. P.LAWASI'HI
515
"It is submitted that the notice under s.29 of the Adhiniyam was A
issued and served to the petitioner and in response to the notice
under s. 29 of the Adhiniyam the petitioner admittedly filed the
objection which has been annexed by the petitioners as Annexure
4 with the writ petition itself."
In view of this specific averment, we find that the High Court was B
not justified in allowing the writ petition and quashing the notification. The
appeal is accordingly allowed. No costs.
(
T.NA.
Appeal allowed.
Lex