- (1.) B. S. Chauhan, J. A large track of land situate in Revenue Estate of village Gailana Mustkil, district Agra was notified under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, (hereinafter called the Act), on 24-3-1982/17-4-1982. In respect of the said land the declaration under Section 6 was made on 25- 3-82/17-4-82. By resorting to. the urgency clause enshrined in the provisions of Section 17of the Act, posses sion of the land was taken by the respon dents on 21-7-82. Out of the notified land some area had been owned by one Shri Hukum Singh Parihar, who allegedly be cause of his poverty and ignorance could not wait for making of the award by the Collector under Section 11 of the Act and he executed a registered sale deed on 20-6-86 in favour of Lal Krishna Sahkari Avas Samiti, Agra. The Collector made the award just on the 4th day of the execution of the sale deed, i. e. on 24-6-86 assessing the market value of the land at the rate of Rs. 45/- per sqr. yard. The said Sahkari Avas Samiti preferred a reference under Section 18 of the Act, which was rejected by the Collector vide order dated 21-7-88 and the order of rejection was communi cated to the said Sahkari Avas Samiti. One Sri Sambhar Singh, whose land had also been acquired by the same notification had filed a reference case No. 275 of 1987 which was decided by reference court on 28-5- 1992 and the market value of the land was assessed at Rs. 115/- per sqr. yard.
(2.) THE present petitioners got a registered sale deed executed in their favour from the said Sahkari Avas Samiti on 17-6-1992 and filed an application under Section 28-A before the Collector on 20-8-1992. THE said application was rejected by the Collector on the ground that the reference under Section 18 filed by the predecessor-in-interest, i. e. Lal Krish na Sahkari Avas Samiti, had been rejected on 21-7-1988 and, thus, the said applica tion under Section 28-A was not main tainable. Hence this writ petition. Heard Shri Murli Dhar Mishra, learned Counsel for the petitioners and learned standing Counsel for the respon dents. It is settled law that once the pos session is taken, the land vests in the State free from all encumbrances under Section 16 of the Act, and once the land vests in the State it could not be divested, vide Satendra Prasad Jain v. State of U. P. and others, AIR 1993 SC 2517 and New Rivera Co-operative Housing Society v. Special Landacquisition Officer, 1996 (1) SCC731. There can also be no quarrel with the proposition that any sale after the S. 4 notification is void, videajay Kumar Sin-ghalv. Union of India, AIR 1996 SC 2677.
(3.) IN Senh Prabha v. State of U. P, AIR 1996 SC 540, the Apex Court observed that any person, who purchases land after pub lication of the notification under Section 4 of the Act does so at his own peril. The object of the Section 4 notification is to give notice to everyone. The land is needed for public purpose and the acquisition proceeding points out "an impediment to anyone to encumber the land acquired thereunder". Therefore, any alienation of the land after the publication of the Sec tion 4 notification is not binding upon the State, and on taking possession of the land, all rights, titles and interests in the land vest in the State under Section 16 of the Act free from all encumbrances. Similarly, in U. P. Jalnigam v. Mis. Kalra Properties (P) Ltd. , AIR 1996 SC 1170, the Apex Court has held that pur chase of land after the publication of the Section 4 notification is void against the State and the purchaser cannot acquire any right, title or interest in the land. How ever, the purchaser may be a person inter ested in compensation, since he steps into the shoes of the erstwhile owner and hence he may claim only compensation.;