1. This petition seeks to assail the recovery notice dated 21 November 2017 issued by the Additional District Magistrate (Land Acquisition/Competent Authority) for recovery of the amount of compensation paid to the petitioner as the sale deed, on the basis of which the petitioner claimed compensation, was executed on 7 September 2015 much after the publication of the declaration made under Section 3D(1) of the National Highways Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) on 7 August 2012.
2. It is stated that a large tract of land measuring 244013.42 sq. mtrs. was sought to be acquired for the Delhi-Meerut Expressway by the National Highways Authority by issuance of a notification under Section 3A of the Act on 14 September 2011 that was followed by the publication of the declaration made under Section 3D(1) of the Act in the official gazette on 7 August 2012. The award was also made on 22 June 2013 but it was subsequently corrected on 29 June 2013.
3. The petitioner had claimed compensation on the basis of a sale deed said to have been executed by Riyasat Ali, who was the owner of the plot, on 7 September 2015.
4. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner is entitled to receive payment of compensation on the basis of the said sale deed and the recovery notice that has been issued is bad in law and deserves to be set aside.
5. Sri. Pranjal Malhotra, learned counsel appearing for the National Highways Authority of India and the learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents have submitted that the sale deed executed in favour of the petitioner on 7 September 2015 is void ab initio since after the publication of the declaration in the official gazette on 7 August 2012, the land vested absolutely in the Central Government free from all encumbrances.
6. We have considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties.
7. It is not in dispute that the petitioner claims to have purchased land on the basis of a sale deed executed on 7 September 2015. The declaration under Section 3D(1) of the Act was published in the official gazette on 7 August 2012. As noted above, section 3D deals with declaration of acquisition. Sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 3D are reproduced below:—
“1. Where no objection under sub-section (1) of section 3C has been made to the competent authority within the period specified therein or where the competent authority has disallowed the objection under sub-section (2) of that section, the competent authority shall, as soon as may be, submit a report accordingly to the Central Government and on receipt of such report, the Central Government shall declare, by notification in the Official Gazette, that the land should be acquired for the purpose or purposes mentioned in sub-section (1) of section 3A.
2. On the publication of the declaration under sub-section (1), the land shall vest absolutely in the Central Government free from all encumbrances.”
8. It is, therefore, clear that on receipt of the report, the Central Government declares by notification in the official gazette that the land should be acquired for the purpose mentioned in subsection (1) of Section 3A. Sub-section (2) of Section 3 provides that on the publication of the declaration under sub-section (1), the land shall vest absolutely in the Central Government free from all encumbrances. Thus, on publication of the declaration in the official gazette on 7 August 2012, the land stood vested in the Central Government free from all encumbrances and the erst while owner did not have any right to execute the sale deed in favour of the petitioner. The sale deed was executed by the petitioner is void ab initio and does not confer any right upon the petitioner to receive compensation.
9. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon a Division Bench of this Court in Surendra Nath Singh Yadav v. Union of India reported in 2018 (2) ADJ 760. This decision relies upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Government (NCT) of Delhi) v. Manav Dharam Trust reported in (2017) 6 SCC 751 which is in connection with the acquisition under the provisions of the National Highways Act, 1956. Unlike the provisions of subSection 3D(2) of the Act under the Land Acquisition Act, the property vests in the State Government free from all encumbrances either under Section 16 or under Section 17, on possession being taken and not on the publication of the declaration under Section 6 of the Act.
10. Thus, the decision in the case of Surender Nath, does not help the petitioners. The petitioners can initiate appropriate proceedings against the erst while owner.
11. Such being the position, the notice dated 21 November 2017 that has been issued by the Competent Authority for recovery of the compensation from the petitioner for the reason that the sale deed was executed after the publication of declaration under Section 3D(1) of the Act does not suffer from any illegality.
12. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed.
Comments