K. N Aswathnarayana Setty
(D) Tr. LRs. & Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka & Ors.
SPECIAL
LEAVE PETITION (C) No.22311 of 2012.
Judgement Dated 2-12-2013
Facts—ACT-
Land Acquisition Act 1894- Section 4
notification for Harijan Society in 1991- Section 6 on 1992- in 1993 Govt
Denotified the said land—Supreme Court quashed the denotification in 2000—in
1997 the above petitioners purchased the land--Minister ordered de notification
on 2004—the 2004 order was challenged by the petitioners in High Court—High
Court (S.B and D.B) dismissed—Supreme court discussing the following principles
dismissed the petition.
Doctrine of Lis Pendence---The transferee cannot deprive the successful
plaintiff of the fruits of the decree if
he purchased the property pendente lite.
K. Adivi Naidu & Ors. vs. E. Duruvasulu Naidu
& Ors., (1995) 6 SCC 150;
Venkatrao Anantdeo
Joshi & Ors. vs. Malatibai & Ors., (2003) 1 SCC 722;
Raj Kumar vs.
Sardari Lal & Ors., (2004) 2 SCC 601;
Sanjay Verma v.
Manik Roy & Ors., AIR 2007 SC 133
In
Rajender Singh & Ors. v. Santa Singh & Ors., AIR 1973 SC 2537, “The doctrine of lis pendens was
intended to strike at attempts by
parties to a litigation to circumvent the
jurisdiction of a court, in which a dispute on rights or interests in immovable property is pending by
private dealings which may remove the
subject matter of litigation from the ambit of the court’s power to decide
a pending dispute or frustrate its decree.”
Effect of purchase of lands
after Section 4 Notification.--Rights of the
purchaser-- V. Chandrasekaran & Anr.
vs. The Administrative Officer & Ors.,
JT 2012 (9) SC 260--Section 4 notification gives a notice to the public at large that the land
in respect to which it has been issued,
is needed for a public purpose, and it further points out that there will be "an impediment to any
one to encumber the land acquired
thereunder."--- In fact, purchase of land after publication of a Section 4 notification in
relation to such land, is void against the State and at the most, the purchaser
may be a person interested in compensation, since he steps into the shoes of
the erstwhile owner and may therefore, merely claim compensation.
Leela Ram v. Union
of India & Ors., AIR 1975 SC 2112;
Smt. Sneh Prabha
etc. v. State of Uttar Pradesh &
Anr., AIR 1996 SC 540;
Meera Sahni v. Lieutenant Governor of Delhi & Ors.,
(2008) 9 SCC 177;
Tika Ram & Ors.
v. State of U.P. & Ors., (2009) 10 SCC 689.
Subsequent Purchasee cannot
challenge the acquisition proceedings-- a person who purchases land subsequent to the
issuance of a Section 4 notification
with respect to it, is not competent to challenge the validity of the acquisition proceedings on
any ground whatsoever, for the reason
that the sale deed executed in his favour does not confer upon him, any title and at the most he can
claim compensation on the basis of his
vendor’s title.
De notification or withdrawal of section 4 notification—the
person for whom the acquisition was taken must be heard---
State
Govt. Houseless Harijan Employees
Association v. State of Karnataka & Ors., AIR 2001 SC 437
Once the land is vested in
the State free from encumbrances, it cannot be divested--Section
16 or 17 of the Act 1894, the land vests
in the State free from all encumbrances.
LT. Governor of H.P.
& Anr. v. Sri Avinash Sharma, AIR
1970 SC 1576;
Satendra Prasad Jain
& Ors. v. State of U.P. & Ors.,
AIR 1993 SC 2517;
Mandir Shree
Sitaramji alias Shree Sitaram Bhandar v. Land Acquisition Collector & Ors.,
AIR 2005 SC 3581;
Smt. Sulochana Chandrakant
Galande v. Pune Municipal Transport
& Ors., AIR 2010 SC 2962).
N.ANANTHA REDDY vs. ANSHU KATHURIA & ORS.
CIVIL
APPEAL NOS. 10779-10780 OF 2013
Judgment
dated 2-12-2013 by R. M Lodha (J)
REVIEW JURISDICTION IS NOT
AN APPEAL IN DISGUISE
FACTS--
Suit for perpetual Injunction obstructing Light- Defendant (appellant
herein)who is plaintiff's neighbour, made applications for his impleadment as a
proper party in the suit and the application for interim relief- Trial Court
allowed the said applications- respondent herein challenged the order of trial
court by preferring Revision Petitions before High Court—High Court dismissed
the Revisions—the respondent herein filed Review—Review was allowed and
recalled the order dismissing the revisions and set aside the order of trial
court directing a fresh disposal of the application for impleadment—Against the
order in review the present appeal—Supreme Court set aside the order in review
observing as follows
“The
High Court exceeded its review jurisdiction
by reconsidering the merits of the order
dated 08.06.2011. The review jurisdiction
is extremely limited and unless there is
mistake apparent on the face of the record, the order/judgment does not call for review. The
mistake apparent on record means that the
mistake is self evident, needs no search
and stares at its face. Surely, review
jurisdiction is not an appeal in
disguise. The review does not permit rehearing of the matter on merits”(Paragraph 9)
Sasidhar Reddy Sura V/s The State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors.
CIVIL APPEAL NO.
10836 OF 2013
Judgment dated
5-12-2013 by ANIL R. DAVE, J.
Effect
of Recommendations of the Commissions
Appointment
to A.P Higher Judiciary as District Judge—Appellant at time of application had
attained 7 years of Practice—Appellant wrote exam and taken oral
examination--Appellant was not appointed to the post in question for the reason
that he had not completed 35 years of
age at the time when he had submitted his application or at the time when the
advertisement had been issued--Andhra Pradesh State Judicial Service Rules,
2007 stipulates no minimum age bar rather than 7 years practice at
bar—appellant was denied the post because the Justice Shetty Commission
(hereinafter referred to as ‘the
Commission’) had recommended that a person who has completed 35 years of age should only be
appointed as a District and Sessions Judge—Discussing the effect of commission
recommendation and Andhra Pradesh State Judicial Service Rules, 2007 the
Supreme Court allowing the appeal observed as follows-
“The
recommendation or suggestion, if not
supported by the Rules, cannot be implemented. In the instant case, the Rules are silent with
regard to the minimum age. It only
speaks about the maximum age. In the circumstances, one cannot read provisions incorporated in the
report of the Commission into the Rules.
The Rules are statutory and framed under the provisions of Article 309 of the Constitution
of India. In our opinion, if the
recommendations made by the Commission and the statutory Rules are at variance, the provisions incorporated
in the Recruitment Rules have to be
followed. It is pertinent to note that when such a question had been raised before this Court, in
the case of Syed T.A. Naqshbandi’s case
this Court had also observed that till relevant recruitment rules are suitably
amended so as to incorporate the recommendations
made by the Commission, provisions of the statutory rules must be followed.”(Paragraph
19)
“In
the instant case, the Rules do not say anything with regard to the minimum age of a candidate to be selected to
the post in question whereas the
Commission had expressed its view in its report that only after completion of 35 years of age a person
should be appointed as a District and
Sessions Judge but the said recommendation has not been incorporated in the Rules framed by the High
Court for giving appointment to the post in question.”(Paragraph 20)
Decisions
followed by Supreme Court
Syed
T.A. Naqshbandi & Ors. v. State of
Jammu & Kashmir and Ors. (2003) 9 SCC 592.
Rakhi
Ray & Ors. v. High Court of Delhi & Ors. [(2010) 2 SCC 637].
No comments:
Post a Comment