U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad Lucknow (U.P.) vs Pushpa Lata Awasthi
- SCC(1995) 3 SCC 573
- Neutral1995 INSC 161
- SCR[1995] 2 SCR 513
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
A subsequent purchaser of property cannot challenge a notification or acquisition proceeding that the original owner failed to challenge, as the purchaser acquires no higher rights than those possessed by the original owner. Where a State Act incorporates certain provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, amendments to the central Act that are not incorporated by the State legislature do not apply to proceedings initiated under the State Act, and a notification acquiring land under such State Act does not lapse merely by reason of amendments to the central Act. Where the counter-affidavit of the acquiring authority contains a specific averment that notice under the relevant statutory section was issued and served, and the respondent filed objections in response, the High Court cannot allow a writ petition on the ground that such notice was not served without addressing the specific averment in the counter-affidavit.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As 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 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 purchased 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.A, Nos, 3942 and 3943 of 1995.
(Arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 2886/86 & 2899/86).
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.
(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., 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 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 lapsed.
The writ petition was also allowed by the High Court on the ground that notice under s.29 was. not served on the respondent. It is stated in the counter affidavit thus :
"It is submitted that the notice under s.29 of the Adhiniyam was issued and served to the petitioner and in response to the notice under s. 29 of the Adhiniyam the petitioner admittedly tiled 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 not justified in allowing the writ petition and quashing the notification. The appeal is accordingly allowed. No costs.
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