Lekhraj Rawal vs. The State Of Madhya Pradesh

Held

The Court held that the sale of the land executed on 10.10.2003 was invalid. The reasoning was based on the fact that the sale occurred after the issuance of the Section 6 notification under the Land Acquisition Act on 10.10.2002. The Court emphasized that once the Section 6 notification is issued, the title to the land vests with the State, and the original owner loses all rights, title, and interest in the property. Consequently, the appellant could not have legally purchased the land from a vendor who no longer possessed ownership rights. The writ appeal was dismissed. However, the appellant was granted liberty to pursue such remedies as are available in law.

Facts

The appellant, Lekhraj Rawal, is aggrieved by the order dated 22.07.2020 of the learned Single Judge, which dismissed his writ petition. The appellant had purchased land via a registered sale deed dated 10.10.2003. However, this land was acquired by the State through a preliminary notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act on 28.08.2002, followed by a final notification on 10.10.2002. The award for the acquisition was passed on 28.05.2004. The sale deed was executed after the issuance of the Section 6 notification under the Land Acquisition Act. The State contends that upon issuance of the Section 6 notification, the title to the land vests with the State, divesting the original owner of their rights.

Key Issues

1. Whether the sale of land executed on 10.10.2003 is valid, considering that the land was acquired by the State through notifications issued under Section 4 (28.08.2002) and Section 6 (10.10.2002) of the Land Acquisition Act, and an award was passed on 28.05.2004, thereby vesting the title in the State prior to the sale? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner, through his counsel Shri Anand Bharadwaj, argued that he purchased the land in good faith via a registered sale deed. The judgment does not explicitly record the petitioner's arguments regarding the validity of the sale deed or any counter-arguments against the State's claim of title vesting. Revenue/State's contention: The respondents, represented by Shri Ankur Mody, Additional Advocate General, argued that the sale was effected after the issuance of the Section 6 notification. According to the Land Acquisition Act, once the Section 6 notification is issued, the title shifts from the landowner and the land vests with the State. Therefore, the original owner had lost all right, title, and interest in the land and could not have legally sold it to the appellant.