K. Ramaswamy, J. - (1.) We have heard the learned counsel on both sides in the Contempt Petition as well as in I. A. No. 3/94 to review order passed in dismissing the appeal with directions and also the order dated May 5, 1994 passed in the review petition. In view of the facts that have been brought to our notice, we directed that the main matter should be disposed of on merits. Accordingly the review petition, Interlocutory Application, contempt petition and the civil appeal have been posted together. After hearing the counsel on both sides, we are satisfied that manifest errors of law have been committed in this case. Consequently, all the orders passed by this Court are set aside; contempt petition and the interlocutory applications are dismissed; and the main appeal is revived.
(2.) We have heard the counsel on both sides on merits. Notification under Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, "the Act") and Section 17 (4), dispensing with the enquiry under Section 5-A was published on March 8, 1973 acquiring land measuring O. 23 acres for setting up a pumping station to drain out flood water from low lying areas of Buster Palace, Ziamou. The acquired lands bear plot Nos. 97 to 100. Declaration under Section 6 was published on October 9, 1973. Possession of the land was taken on July 5, 1973 and no award came to be passed. M/s. Karla Properties (P) Ltd., the respondent in the main case, had purchased the acquired land by sale deed dated February 3, 1989 at total consideration of Rs. 60,000/-. He filed a writ petition in the High Court for mandamus commanding the appellants to pay compensation in respect of the lands in question on the basis of the market value fixed by the District Magistrate, Collector, Lucknow (Annexure No. 6) filed in the High Court. The Division Bench by order dated November 17, 1992, allowed the writ petition, issued mandamus and directed that the compensation should be paid to the respondents in accordance with the market value assessed by the Collector at the rate of Rs. 200/- per square foot with all consequential benefits of solatium and interest under the Act as amended by Amendment Act 68 of 1984.
(3.) The learned Attorney General for the appellants contended that after the judgment, it has come to light that in respect of the self-same lands, the market value as per the guidelines issued by the Government was determined for stamp duty at Rs. 80/- per square yard in Ziamou area and the respondent himself had purchased the land for Rs. 60,000/- in 1989. The determination of the compensation by the Collector @ 200/- per square foot is an obvious error apparent on the face of the record and the directions issued by the Division Bench are vitiated by manifest error of law. Shri Gopal Subramanyam, the learned counsel, who has sought for and granted 15 adjournments on the ground that matter is being settled has informed the Court that the settlement has not been reached and it is under process. He has sought further extension of time. Since the case has been adjourned several times, we are not inclined to adjourn the case. In this usual fairness, he has stated that he does not stand on technicalities. The respondent has purchased the land in question. The acquisition covered about 10,000 square feet in addition, the respondent had purchased another 5,000/- square feet which was also taken possession by the respondent under the notification but the same does not form part of the acquisition. He contended that since possession was taken before declaration under Section 6 was published, it was not validly taken. Admittedly, the award was not made even after two years of the coming into force of the Amendment Act. Therefore, the notification under Section 4 (1) and the declaration under Section 6 shall stand lapsed by operation of Section 11-A of the Act. Thereby, the respondent is entitled to the compensation on the basis of prevailing market value. The District Collector had assessed the market value at Rs. 200/- per square foot and, therefore, there is no illegality in the order of the Division Bench in directing payment of the compensation @ Rs. 200/- per square foot and also the consequential solatium and interest. Having regard to the facts of this case, we were not inclined to further adjourn the case nor to remit the case for fresh consideration by the High Court. It is settled law that after the notification under Section 4 (1) is published in the Gazette any encumbrance by the owner does not bind the Government and the purchaser does not acquire any title to the property. In this case, notification under Section 4 (1) was published on march 24, 1973, possession of the land admittedly was taken on July 5, 1973 and pumping station house was constructed. No doubt, declaration under Section 6 was published later on July 8, 1973, Admittedly power under Section 17 (4) was exercised dispensing with the enquiry under Section 5-A and on service of the notice under Section 9 possession was taken, since urgency was acute, viz., pumping station house was to be constructed to drain out flood water. Consequently, the land stood vested in the State under Section 17 (2) free from all encumbrances. It is further settled law that once possession is taken, by operation of Section 17 (2), the land vests in the State free from all encumbrances unless a notification u/S. 48 (1) is published in the Gazette withdrawing from the acquisition. S. 11-A, as amended by Act 68 of 1984, therefore, does not apply and the acquisition does not lapse. The notification under Section 4 (1) and the declaration under Section 6, therefore, remain valid. There is no other provision under the Act to have the acquired land divested, unless, as stated earlier, notification under Section 48 (1) was published and the possession are surrendered pursuant thereto. That apart, since M/s. Kalra Properties, respondent and purchased the land after the notification under Section 4 (1) was published, its sale is void against the State and it acquired no right, title or interest in the land. Consequently, it is settled law that it cannot challenge the validity of the notification or the regularity in taking possession of the land before publication of the declaration under Section 6 was published.;