Sunil Kumar Jain vs Kishan & Ors
- SCC(1995) 4 SCC 147
- Neutral1995 INSC 308
- AIRAIR 1995 SC 1891
- SCR[1995] 3 SCR 855
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
An agreement of sale does not confer title to property; accordingly, even if valid, an agreement holder does not acquire any legal interest in the property sufficient to claim compensation in a land acquisition reference. Where an agreement of sale is executed after the notification under section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, the Government is not bound by such agreement, and the inter se dispute regarding entitlement to compensation falls to be determined by reference to title as it existed on the date of the section 4(1) notification. In a reference under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, the dispute concerns the title to receive compensation as on the date of notification under section 4(1); the person holding undoubted ownership at that date is entitled to the compensation, and the existence of a subsequent agreement of sale does not alter this position.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO.9886 OF 1987 SUNIL KUMAR JAIN .....PETITIONER VERSUS KISHAN AND OTHERS .....RESPONDENTS O R D E R Notification under s.4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act was published on November 17, 1980 acquiring the lands in question. The Collector made an award for a sum of Rs.38,500/-. Since the petitioner laid claim for a higher amount, a reference under s.18 was made. The civil court disbelieved the agreement of sale put forth by the petitioner; therefore, reference was ordered in favour of the respondents. In appeal, the High Court said that the said agreement was in violation of s.4 of the Delhi Land (Restriction & Transfer) Act, 1972 and that, therefore, the agreement is void. Accordingly, the findings of the Reference Court was accepted. Thus, this appeal by Special Leave.
Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the under the agreement of sale dated 5th December, 1981 the respondents had received consideration and kept the petitioner in possession of the land and that, therefore, by operation of s,53-A of the Transfer of Property Act, the petitioner is entitled to the compensation. We are unable to agree with the learned counsel. In a reference, the dispute is to the title to receive the compensation. It is settled law that the agreement of sale does not confer title and, therefore, the agreement holder, even assuming that the agreement is valid, does not acquire any title to the property. It is seen that the agreement is subsequent to the notification under s.4(1). The Government is not bound by such an agreement. The inter-se dispute is only with respect to the title as on the date of notification under s.4(1). The respondent is the undoubted owner of the property as per s.4 notification and that, therefore, the compensation was directed to be paid to the respondent since he is one of the members. We cannot find any illegality in the order passed by the Courts. However, if the petitioner has got any claim under s.30 of the Land Acquisition Act, it is open to him to take such action as open to him under law.
The Special Leave Petition is accordingly dismissed.
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free