SHIV KUMAR & Anr. v. UNION OF INDIA & Ors.

U.P. Jal Nigam, Lucknow through its Chairman & Anr. v. Kalra Properties (P) Ltd., Lucknow & Ors. (1996) 3 SCC 124 : [1996] 1 SCR 683 ; Sneh Prabha (Smt.) & Ors. v. State of U.P. & Anr. (1996) 7 SCC 426 : [1995] 5 Suppl. SCR 264 ; Meera Sahni v. Lieutenant Governor of Delhi & Ors. (2008) 9 SCC 177 : [2008] 10 SCR 1012 ; V. Chandrasekaran & Anr. v. Administrative Officer & Ors. (2012) 12 SCC 133 : [2012] 10 SCR 603 ; Rajasthan State Industrial Development and Investment Corpn. v. Subhash Sindhi Cooperative Housing Society, Jaipur & Ors. (2013) 5 SCC 427 : [2015] 5 SCR 365 ; Rajasthan Housing Board v. New Pink City Nirman Sahkari Samiti Ltd. & Anr. (2015) 7 SCC 601 : [2015] 5 SCR 365 ; M. Venkatesh & Ors. v. Commissioner, Bangalore Development Authority, etc. (2015) 17 SCC 1 : [2015] 11 SCR 454 – referred to.

2. The ‘affected family’ has been defined under section 3(c) of the 2013 Act. The affected family includes landowners for whose benefit land is held before the acquisition. A person acquiring interest after section 11 notification cannot be said to be included in the “affected family” at all. Landowner as defined in Section 3(r) is a person who is recorded as the owner of land or building. A purchaser after section 11 cannot be said to be a landowner within the purview of section 3(r). [Paras 10, 12] [709- G; 710-F; 711-B-F]

3.1 Section 24(2) provides that in case the award has been passed five years or more prior to the commencement of the Act, but the physical possession of the land has not been taken, or the compensation has not been paid, the said proceedings shall be deemed to have lapsed. In the instant case, there is A B C D E F G H 698 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 13 S.C.R. A B C D E F G H nothing to doubt that actual physical possession had been taken in 2000. Thus, Section 24(2) is not attracted in the case. Even otherwise, proviso to Section 24(2) does not recognize a purchaser after Section 4 notification inasmuch as it provides that where an award has been made, and the compensation in respect of a majority of land holdings has not been deposited in the account of the beneficiaries, then, all beneficiaries specified in the notification for acquisition issued under the Act of 1894, shall be entitled to compensation under the provisions of the Act of 2013. The proviso makes it clear that in case of compensation concerning the majority of landholding has not been deposited, then recorded owner(s) at the time of issuance of notification under section 4 of the Act of 1894 shall have the right to receive the compensation. Purchasers after section 4 notification have not been given the right to receive the higher compensation under the provisions contained in the Act of 2013. [Paras 16, 17] [713-D-F-H; 714-A ]

3.2 The Act of 2013 presupposes that a person is required to be rehabilitated and resettled. Such a person who has purchased after section 4 notification as sale deed is void under the Act of 1894, cannot claim rehabilitation and resettlement as per policy envisaged under the Act of 2013, as his land has not been acquired, but he has purchased a property which has already been acquired by the State Government, he cannot claim even higher compensation, as per proviso to section 24(2) under the Act of 2013. Given that, the transaction of sale, effected after section 4 notification, is void, is ineffective to transfer the land, such incumbents cannot invoke the provisions of section 24. As the sale transaction did not clothe them with the title when the purchase was made; they cannot claim ‘possession’ and challenge the acquisition as having lapsed under section 24 by questioning the legality or regularity of proceedings of taking over of possession under the Act of 1894. It would be unfair and unjust and against the policy of the law to permit such a person to claim resettlement or claim the land back as envisaged under the Act of 2013. When he has not been deprived of his livelihood but is a purchaser under a void transaction, the outcome of exploitative tactics played upon poor farmers who were unable to defend themselves. Thus, under the provisions of Section 24 of the Act SHIV KUMAR & ANR. v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 699 of 2013, challenge to acquisition proceeding of the taking over of possession under the Act of 1894 cannot be made, based on a void transaction nor declaration can be sought under section 24(2) by such incumbents to obtain the land. The Act of 2013 does not confer any right on purchaser whose sale is ab initio void. Such void transactions are not validated under the Act of 2013. No rights are conferred by the provisions contained in the 2013 Act on such a purchaser as against the State. ‘Void is, ab initio,’ a nullity, is inoperative, and a person cannot claim the land or declaration once no title has been conferred upon him to claim that the land should be given back to him. 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 Section 24 of the Act of 2013; it will amount to conferment of benefit never contemplated by the law. [Paras 18-21] [714-B- C-E-H; 715-A-D]

4. The provisions of the Act of 2013 aimed 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 intendment of 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. It is not open to them to claim that the proceedings have lapsed under Section 24(2). Apart from that the claims have been made on transactions based on the power of attorneys, agreements, etc.; as such also they are not entitled to any indulgence and cannot invoke provisions of section 24(2) of the 2013 Act. 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. [Paras 22, 23, 24] [715-F-H; 716-A; 718- E]