- (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.
(2.) Leave granted.
(3.) In view of the order in ciyil appeal arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) No. 1143 of 1986, these appeals are allowed. No costs.;