Subsequent Purchaser After Issuance Of Notification Under Land Acquisition Act Can't Challenge Acquisition Proceedings: Madras High Court

The Madras High Court recently observed that a person who purchases a piece of land after the issuance of notification for its acquisition by the government under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894, has no right to challenge the acquisition proceedings. 

The bench of Chief Justice Munishwar Nath Bhandari and Justice N Mala dismissed the appeals filed by subsequent purchasers of a property, who were challenging the acquisition after twenty years. The court relied on the decision of the Apex Court in Meera Sahni v. Lt. Governor of Delhi (2008 (9) SCC 177) which held that any purchase, after the Notification under Section 4(1) of the Act of 1894 is "void ab-initio" and thus, subsequent purchasers cannot challenge acquisition proceedings. 

In the present case, an appeal was preferred against the dismissal of writ petitions challenging the land acquisition proceedings in reference to the Act of 1894 and Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition and Rehabilitation and Re-settlement Act, 2013.

The appellants submitted that Notice under Section 4(1) was issued in 1990 and the Declaration was issued in 1992 followed by the award in 1994. The appellant's main ground challenging the acquisition was that there was a delay in passing the Award. The appellants contended that the Award could not be passed beyond a period of two years from the date of declaration under Section 6 of the Act and thus, the Award in this case had lapsed.

The court analyzed the decision in Shiv Kumar Vs. Union of India (2019 (10) SCC 229) and Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal (2020 (8) SCC 129) wherein the courts had reiterated that the purchaser of the land, after issuance of Notification under Section 4 of the Act of 1894, has no right to challenge the acquisition proceedings and he can, at the best, claim compensation.

The court also took note of the fact that the acquisition proceedings were challenged by the appellants after a lapse of almost 20 years of the Award and such delay could not be ignored.

In view of such facts, the court held that the appeals were liable to be dismissed.

Case Title: B Nagaraj v. The State and others

Case No: W.A No. 1204 of 2022 and others

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 262

Counsel for the Appellant: Mr.G.Ethirajulu

Counsel for the Respondent: Mr.P.Muthukumar State Government Pleader assisted by Mr.Alagu Gowtham, Govt. Advocate (R1-4)