RAJIV KUMAR Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS order shall dispose of aforementioned two writ petitions i.e. CWP No. 20840 of 2014 and CWP No. 21135 of 2014. However, for the facility of reference, the facts are taken from CWP No. 20840 of 2014, wherein challenge is to the notifications dated 30.11.2004 and 28.11.2005 issued under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short the Act) respectively in view of the provisions of Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Re -settlement Act, 2013 (for short the 2013 Act). As per the facts pleaded, the petitioner has taken the land in question from the Haryana Wakf Board on lease on 21.12.2005 i.e. after the publication of notifications under Sections 4 & 6 of the Act. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the Division Bench judgments of this Court in Smt. Kamla Devi & others v. State of Haryana & others : 2015 (I) PLJ 277 as well as of Delhi High Court reported as M/s. I.S. Dye Stuff Industries Ltd. v. Union of India & others : 2015 (148) DRJ 705, to contend that a purchaser has a right to protect possession in terms of Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act. In the aforesaid judgments, reliance is placed upon Hon'ble Supreme Court judgment in Union of India v. Shiv Ray : (2014) 6 SCC 564.

(2.) ON the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents relied upon the Hon'ble Supreme Court judgment in Meera Sahni v. Lt. Governor of Delhi, : 2008 (9) SCC 177 to contend that a subsequent purchaser has no right to dispute the acquisition proceedings under Sections 4 & 6 of the Act. Since the petitioner is not even the purchaser, but a lessee, he cannot dispute the acquisition proceedings. It is also argued that the Wakf Board has challenged the acquisition proceedings before this Court by way of CWP No. 12219 of 2008, which has since been dismissed on 17.07.2008. The Wakf Board has preferred Special leave to Appeal No. 69 of 2009, which is pending consideration before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. It is argued that since the writ petition filed by the owner stands dismissed, the petitioner i.e. a lessee under the Wakf Board has no independent right to challenge the acquisition proceedings.

(3.) IN Meera Sahni's case (supra), the notifications under Sections 4 and 6 of the Act were issued on 24.10.1961 and 04.01.1969 respectively. Notice under Section 9 was issued on 26.04.1983. The petitioner therein purchased the land in the year 1980. It is in these circumstances, the Court examined the issue that after vesting of the land with the State whether the purchaser has a right to dispute the acquisition. The Court held that subsequent purchaser cannot challenge the acquisition proceedings.