1995 JTR(SC) 327
1995 2 CCC(SC) 261 ; 1995 2 CurCC(SC) 261 ; 1995 2 Scale 479 ; 1995 3 SCC 573 ; 1995 2 SCJ 110 ; 1995 2 SCR 513
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
BEFORE K. RAMASWAMY AND B.L. HANSARIA, JJ.
U.P. AVAS EVAM VIKAS PARISHAD, LUCKNOW (U.P.)
Versus PUSHPA LATA AWASTHI(SMT)
Civil Appeal No. 3940 of 1995{From the Judgment and Order dated 3-10-1985 of the Allahabad High Court in C.M.W.P. No. 15781 of 1983}
Decided on 6-3-1995
Advocates appeared:
O.P. Rana, Senior Advocate (P.N. Gupta, Advocate, with him) for the Appellant in C.A. No. 3940 of 1995.
Shrish Kumar Misra, A.K. Goel, Ms Sheela Goel and E.C. Agarwala, Advocates, for the Respondent.
Act
Referred
:LAND ACQUISITION ACT : S.4
UTTAR PRADESH AVAS EVAM VIKAS PARISHAD ADHINIYAM : S.28, S.32, S.55, S.29
(A) The Uttar Pradesh Avas Evam Vikas Parishad Adhiniyam (Sections 28, 32, 55, 29) and the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (Section 4) are the primary statutory frameworks governing this dispute. The adjudication turns on the validity of a land acquisition notification challenged by subsequent purchasers who acquired title after the initial notification. The core issue is whether purchasers for value, who derive title from the original owner, can challenge the notification after having received formal notice and failed to object. The court examines whether the doctrine of res judicata or the principle of notice and objection under the State Act bars such challenge, especially where the original owner did not challenge the notification and the subsequent purchasers were afforded an opportunity to be heard. The applicability of the Land Acquisition Amendment Act, 1984, and the consequences of non-reference to the appropriate authority are also critical statutory considerations.
(B) Key legal principles include: (i) A subsequent purchaser takes only the title and rights of the transferor, and cannot assert a higher right; (ii) The principle of notice and objection under the State Act, where failure to object after receiving notice can lead to forfeiture of the right to challenge; (iii) The doctrine of res judicata, where an issue already decided by a competent court cannot be re-litigated; (iv) The procedural requirement of serving notice under Section 29 of the State Act before acquisition proceedings can proceed; (v) The principle that once notice is given and an objection filed, the acquiring authority is bound to consider the objection and cannot proceed without adjudication; (vi) The rule that amendments to the central Act do not automatically apply to State proceedings unless expressly incorporated by the State Legislature; and (vii) The finality of administrative decisions when procedural requirements are met.
Facts of the case:
The respondents purchased property on 21-5-1983. The notification acquiring the land had been issued earlier, and the original owner had not challenged it. The respondents, being subsequent purchasers from Chote Lal, had received notice under the State Act and were given an opportunity to object, which they did not effectively pursue. The High Court had allowed the respondents' writ petition challenging the notification, holding that notice under Section 29 was not properly served. The central government and the State were involved in the dispute, with the matter arising from Special Leave Petitions against the High Court's order.
Findings of Court:
The Supreme Court found that the respondents, as subsequent purchasers, could not challenge the notification after acquiring the property, especially since they had not challenged it and had been served with notice and an opportunity to object. The Court held that the High Court was in error in allowing the writ petition, as the procedural requirements under the State Act had been substantially met. The specific assertion that notice under Section 29 was not served was rejected in light of the counter-affidavit indicating that notice was issued and an objection was filed by the respondents. Consequently, the notification did not lapse, and the acquisition proceedings could proceed.
Issues:
(1) Whether subsequent purchasers who acquired property after a notification can challenge the validity of that notification? (2) Whether the respondents were properly served with notice under Section 29 of the State Act and given an opportunity to object? (3) Whether the High Court was correct in quashing the notification on the ground of non-service of notice? (4) Whether the Land Acquisition Amendment Act, 1984, applies to proceedings initiated under the State Act?
Ratio Decidendi:
The purchasers, having derived their title from the original owner who did not challenge the notification, and having received formal notice and an opportunity to object under the State Act, are estopped from challenging the acquisition notification. The High Court erred in disregarding the procedural compliance regarding notice and objection, and the respondents' subsequent challenge is barred by the principles of res judicata and procedural finality.
Result:
The appeals are allowed. The order of the High Court quashing the notification is set aside. No costs are awarded.
(A) The Uttar Pradesh Avas Evam Vikas Parishad Adhiniyam (Sections 28, 32, 55, 29) and the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (Section 4) are the primary statutory frameworks governing this dispute. The adjudication turns on the validity of a land acquisition notification challenged by subsequent purchasers who acquired title after the initial notification. The core issue is whether purchasers for value, who derive title from the original owner, can challenge the notification after having received formal notice and failed to object. The court examines whether the doctrine of res judicata or the principle of notice and objection under the State Act bars such challenge, especially where the original owner did not challenge the notification and the subsequent purchasers were afforded an opportunity to be heard. The applicability of the Land Acquisition Amendment Act, 1984, and the consequences of non-reference to the appropriate authority are also critical statutory considerations.
(B) Key legal principles include: (i) A subsequent purchaser takes only the title and rights of the transferor, and cannot assert a higher right; (ii) The principle of notice and objection under the State Act, where failure to object after receiving notice can lead to forfeiture of the right to challenge; (iii) The doctrine of res judicata, where an issue already decided by a competent court cannot be re-litigated; (iv) The procedural requirement of serving notice under Section 29 of the State Act before acquisition proceedings can proceed; (v) The principle that once notice is given and an objection filed, the acquiring authority is bound to consider the objection and cannot proceed without adjudication; (vi) The rule that amendments to the central Act do not automatically apply to State proceedings unless expressly incorporated by the State Legislature; and (vii) The finality of administrative decisions when procedural requirements are met.
Facts of the case:
The respondents purchased property on 21-5-1983. The notification acquiring the land had been issued earlier, and the original owner had not challenged it. The respondents, being subsequent purchasers from Chote Lal, had received notice under the State Act and were given an opportunity to object, which they did not effectively pursue. The High Court had allowed the respondents' writ petition challenging the notification, holding that notice under Section 29 was not properly served. The central government and the State were involved in the dispute, with the matter arising from Special Leave Petitions against the High Court's order.
Findings of Court:
The Supreme Court found that the respondents, as subsequent purchasers, could not challenge the notification after acquiring the property, especially since they had not challenged it and had been served with notice and an opportunity to object. The Court held that the High Court was in error in allowing the writ petition, as the procedural requirements under the State Act had been substantially met. The specific assertion that notice under Section 29 was not served was rejected in light of the counter-affidavit indicating that notice was issued and an objection was filed by the respondents. Consequently, the notification did not lapse, and the acquisition proceedings could proceed.
Issues:
(1) Whether subsequent purchasers who acquired property after a notification can challenge the validity of that notification? (2) Whether the respondents were properly served with notice under Section 29 of the State Act and given an opportunity to object? (3) Whether the High Court was correct in quashing the notification on the ground of non-service of notice? (4) Whether the Land Acquisition Amendment Act, 1984, applies to proceedings initiated under the State Act?
Ratio Decidendi:
The purchasers, having derived their title from the original owner who did not challenge the notification, and having received formal notice and an opportunity to object under the State Act, are estopped from challenging the acquisition notification. The High Court erred in disregarding the procedural compliance regarding notice and objection, and the respondents' subsequent challenge is barred by the principles of res judicata and procedural finality.
Result:
The appeals are allowed. The order of the High Court quashing the notification is set aside. No costs are awarded.
A.K.GOHIL, E.C.AGARWAL, O.P.RANA, P.N.Gupta, SHILA GOEL, SHRISH MISHRA
ORDER
1. In view of the fact that the respondents had purchased the property on 21-5-1983, they cannot have any higher right than what the owner had. Admittedly, the owner had not challenged the notification. Awasthi was thesubsequent purchaser from Chote Lal. 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 purchased the property in question. Under these circumstances, the High Court was clearly in error in allowing the Writ Petition No. 15781 of 1983. The appeal is accordingly allowed. No costs.
CAs Nos. 3942 and 3943 of 1995 [Arising out of SLPs (C) Nos. 2886 of 1986 and 2899 of 1986]
2. Leave granted.
3. In view of the order in civil appeal arising out of SLP (C) No. 1143 of 1986, these appeals are allowed. No costs.
CAs No. 3941 of 1995 [Arising out of SLP (C) No. 2885 of 1986]
4. Though notice was served on the respondent, nobody appears for him. Leave granted. In Gauri Shankar Gaur v. State of U.P. this Court, one of us - K. Ramaswamy, J., elaborately considered and held that certain provisions of the Land Acquisition 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, 1984, 68 of 1984 was inapplicable. Unless the State Legislature incorporates the amendment, these cannot be applied to the proceedings initiated under the State Act. The notification acquiring the land, therefore, does not get lapsed.
5. The writ petition was also allowed by the High Court on the ground that notice under Section 29 was not served on the respondent. It is stated in the counter-affidavit thus:
"It is submitted that the notice under Section 29 of the Adhiniyam was issued and served to the petitioner and in response to the notice under Section 29 of the Adhiniyam the petitioner admittedly filed the objection which has been annexed by the petitioner as Annexure 4 with the writ petition itself."
6. In view of this specific averment, we find that the High Court was not justified in allowing the writ petition and quashing the notification. The appeal is accordingly allowed. No costs.
For Citation: 1995(3) SCC 573
Vikas Info Solutions Pvt. Ltd.