http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

PETITIONER: SUNIL KUMAR JAIN

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: KISHAN & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT27/04/1995

BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. HANSARIA B.L. (J)

CITATION:  1995 AIR 1891            1995 SCC  (4) 147  1995 SCALE  (3)682

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:           THE 27TH DAY OF APRIL,1995 Present :           Hon’ble Mr.Justice K.Ramaswamy           Hon’ble Mr.Justice B.L.Hansaria Mr. V.J.Francis, Adv. for the Petitioner                   O R D E R The following Order of the Court was delivered:           IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA           CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION      SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO.9886 OF 1987 SUNIL KUMAR JAIN                     .....PETITIONER           VERSUS KISHAN AND OTHERS                    .....RESPONDENTS                       O R D E R      Notification under  s.4(1) of  the Land Acquisition Act was published  on November  17, 1980  acquiring the lands in question.  The   Collector  made  an  award  for  a  sum  of Rs.38,500/-. Since  the petitioner  laid claim  for a higher amount, a  reference under  s.18 was  made. The  civil court disbelieved  the   agreement  of   sale  put  forth  by  the petitioner; therefore,  reference was  ordered in  favour of the respondents.  In appeal,  the High  Court said  that the said agreement  was in  violation of  s.4 of  the Delhi Land (Restriction &  Transfer) Act, 1972 and that, therefore, the agreement  is   void.  Accordingly,   the  findings  of  the Reference Court  was accepted.  Thus, this appeal by Special Leave.      Learned counsel  appearing for the petitioner contended that the  under the  agreement of  sale dated  5th December, 1981 the respondents had received consideration and kept the petitioner in possession of the land and that, therefore, by operation of  s,53-A of  the Transfer  of Property  Act, the petitioner is entitled to the compensation. We are unable to agree with  the learned counsel. In a reference, the dispute is to  the title  to receive the compensation. It is settled

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2  

law that the agreement of sale does not confer    title and, therefore, the  agreement holder,  even  assuming  that  the agreement is  valid, does  not  acquire  any  title  to  the property. It is seen that the agreement is subsequent to the notification under  s.4(1). The  Government is  not bound by such an agreement. The inter-se dispute is only with respect to the  title as  on the  date of notification under s.4(1). The respondent is the undoubted owner of the property as per s.4 notification  and that,  therefore, the compensation was directed to be paid to the respondent since he is one of the members. We  cannot find  any illegality in the order passed by the  Courts. However, if the petitioner has got any claim under s.30 of the Land Acquisition Act, it is open to him to take such action as open to him under law.      The Special Leave Petition is accordingly dismissed.