(1995) AIR(SCW) 2940 : (1995) AIR(SC) 1891 : (1995) 3 CurCC 108 : (1995) 59 DLT 14 : (1995) 2 LJR 725 : (1995) 3 SCALE 682 : (1995) 4 SCC 147 : (1995) 3 SCR 855 : (1995) 2 UJ(SC) 558
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
DIVISION BENCH
( Before : K. Ramaswamy, J; B.L. Hansaria, J )
SUNIL KUMAR JAIN — Appellant
Vs.
KISHAN AND OTHERS — Respondent
Spl. Leave Petition (Civil) No. 9886 of 1987
Decided on : 27-04-1995
Delhi Lands (Restrictions on Transfer) Act, 1972 – Section 4
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Section 18, Section 30, Section 4
Transfer of Property Act, 1882 – Section 53A
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Section 18 – Reference – Locus standi to seek – Subsequent purchaser of land, who had entered into an agreement for purchase of property after publication of notification under Section 4, seeking reference – Agreement to sell confers no title – Reliance on Section 53 – A of Transfer of Property Act not proper – Reference rightly refused.
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Section 30 – Apportionment of compensation – Subsequent purchaser of land, who had entered into an agreement for purchase of property after publication of notification under Section 4, seeking reference – Agreement to sell confers no title, but he may seek apportionment.
Transfer of Property Act, 1882 – Section 53-A – Part performance – Effect of – Subsequent purchaser of land, who had entered into an agreement for purchase of property after publication of notification under Section 4, seeking reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for enhancement of compensation for acquisition of land – Agreement to sell confers no title, but he may seek apportionment under Section 30 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
Counsel for Appearing Parties
V.J. Francis, for the Appellant;
ORDER
1. Notification u/s 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act was published on November 17, 1980 acquiring the lands in question. The Collector made an award for a sum of Rs. 38,500. Since the petitioner laid claim for a higher amount, a reference u/s 18 was made. The civil court disbelieved the. agreement of sale put forth by the petitioner; therefore, reference was ordered in favour of the respondents. In appeal, the High Court said that the said agreement was in violation of Section 4 of the Delhi Land (Restriction & Transfer) Act, 1972 and that, therefore, the agreement is void. Accordingly, the findings of the Reference Court was accepted. Thus, this appeal by Special Leave.
2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the under the agreement of sale dated 5th December, 1981 the respondents had received consideration and kept the petitioner in possession of the land and that, therefore, by operation of Section 53-A of the Transfer the Property Act, the petitioner is entitled to the compensation. We are unable to agree with the learned Counsel. In a reference, the dispute is to the title to receive the compensation. It is settled law that the agreement of sale does not confer title and, therefore, the agreement holder, even assuming that the agreement is valid, does not acquire any title to the property. It is seen that the agreement is subsequent to the notification u/s 4(1). The Government is not bound by such an agreement. The inter-se dispute is only with respect to the title as on the date of notification u/s 4(1). The Respondent is the undoubted owner of the property as per Section 4 notification and that, therefore, the compensation was directed to be paid to the respondent since he is one of the members. We cannot find any illegality in the order passed by the Courts. However, if the petitioner has got any claim u/s 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, it is open to him to take such action as open to him under law.
3. The SLP is accordingly dismissed.
