Case Note & Summary
The dispute arose from land acquisition proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. A notification under Section 4(1) was published on November 17, 1980, acquiring the lands in question. The Collector made an award of Rs.38,500. The petitioner, Sunil Kumar Jain, sought a higher amount and a reference under Section 18 was made to the civil court. The petitioner relied on an agreement of sale dated December 5, 1981, claiming that the respondents had received consideration and put him in possession of the land. The civil court disbelieved the agreement and ordered the reference in favour of the respondents. The High Court dismissed the petitioner's appeal, holding that the agreement was void under Section 4 of the Delhi Land (Restriction and Transfer) Act, 1972. The petitioner then filed a Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court. The petitioner's counsel argued that under the agreement of sale the respondents had received consideration and kept the petitioner in possession, and that by operation of Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act, the petitioner was entitled to compensation. The Supreme Court rejected this contention. The Court observed that in a reference under Section 18, the dispute is about title to receive compensation. It is settled law that an agreement of sale does not confer title, and therefore an agreement holder, even assuming the agreement is valid, does not acquire any title to the property. The Court also noted that the agreement was subsequent to the notification under Section 4(1), and the Government was not bound by such an agreement. The inter se dispute between the parties was only with respect to title as on the date of the notification under Section 4(1). Since the respondent was the undoubted owner of the property as per the Section 4 notification, the compensation was directed to be paid to the respondent. The Supreme Court found no illegality in the orders passed by the lower courts. However, the Court clarified that if the petitioner had any claim under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, it was open to him to take such action as available under law. The Special Leave Petition was dismissed, thereby upholding the decisions of the High Court and the Reference Court, and maintaining that compensation was payable to the respondent as the owner of the land on the date of the Section 4(1) notification.
Headnote
A) Land Acquisition - Title to Compensation - Agreement for Sale Does Not Confer Title - Land Acquisition Act, 1894, Sections 4(1), 18, 30; Transfer of Property Act, 1882, Section 53-A - In a land acquisition reference, the dispute concerned title to receive compensation. The Supreme Court held that an agreement for sale does not confer title to immovable property, even if valid, and an agreement holder therefore has no right to claim compensation. The agreement was subsequent to the notification under Section 4(1), and the inter se dispute was to be decided as on that date. Held that the agreement holder was not entitled to compensation, and the recorded owner's claim was upheld. (Paras not mentioned) B) Delhi Land Laws - Restriction on Transfer - Void Agreement - Delhi Land (Restriction and Transfer) Act, 1972, Section 4 - The High Court held the sale agreement dated 5 December 1981 void as it violated Section 4 of the Act. The Supreme Court accepted this finding and reiterated that title must exist as on the date of Section 4(1) notification. Held that the agreement being void and subsequent to notification did not bind the Government or confer title. (Paras not mentioned) C) Land Acquisition - Reference Proceedings - Remedy Under Section 30 Available - Land Acquisition Act, 1894, Section 30 - The Court noted that if the petitioner had any claim under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, it was open to him to take such action as available under law. The Special Leave Petition was dismissed, leaving the petitioner free to pursue any Section 30 remedy. Held that dismissal of the SLP did not preclude a separate claim under Section 30. (Paras not mentioned)
Issue of Consideration
Whether an agreement for sale executed after notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 confers title to receive compensation; whether Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 entitles an agreement holder to compensation in a land acquisition reference.
Final Decision
Special Leave Petition dismissed. High Court and Reference Court orders upheld. Petitioner's reliance on Section 53-A Transfer of Property Act rejected; agreement holder does not acquire title. Compensation directed to respondent as owner as per Section 4 notification. Petitioner left to pursue any claim under Section 30 of Land Acquisition Act.
Law Points
- Agreement for sale does not confer title
- Compensation payable to owner as on date of Section 4(1) notification
- Section 53-A Transfer of Property Act does not entitle agreement holder
- Agreement void under Delhi Land Act not binding on Government
- Section 30 Land Acquisition Act remedy available
